nworks_drive_upload

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Without annotations, the description effectively discloses the OAuth authentication requirement ('User OAuth file scope 필요') and explains the dual input methods. However, it lacks details on return values, side effects, or size constraints typical for file upload operations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three well-structured sentences efficiently convey the tool's purpose, authentication requirements, parameter usage patterns, and contextual recommendations without redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description adequately covers the 6-parameter input schema and authentication needs for this mutation tool, but lacks disclosure of return values or mutation side effects expected for a write operation given the absence of both annotations and output schema.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 100% schema coverage establishing a baseline of 3, the description adds crucial semantic context by explaining the mutual exclusivity of content+fileName versus filePath approaches and recommending the appropriate method for MCP environments.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The phrase '파일을 드라이브에 업로드합니다' provides a specific verb (upload) and resource (file to drive), clearly distinguishing this tool from siblings like nworks_drive_download and nworks_drive_list.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly contrasts two parameter approaches ('content(base64)와 fileName으로 전달하거나, filePath로...') and provides a clear contextual recommendation ('MCP 클라이언트에서는 content+fileName 방식을 권장합니다'), though it does not explicitly state when to use upload versus other drive operations.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.