nworks_drive_upload

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

The description adds behavioral details beyond annotations: it specifies the required User OAuth file scope and the local-only constraint for filePath. It also implies the tool is a write operation (consistent with readOnlyHint=false) but does not disclose side effects like size limits or conflict handling beyond the overwrite parameter (already in schema). No contradiction with annotations.

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?

The description is three concise sentences with no redundant wording. It front-loads the core purpose and OAuth requirement, then explains the two input methods, and concludes with a practical recommendation. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure is easy to scan.

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?

Given the lack of an output schema, the description covers the essential invocation details: authentication scope, content delivery options, and parameter composition. It does not explain the return value or error behavior, but for an upload operation that is typically not critical. The schema covers folderId and overwrite defaults, so the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to call the tool correctly.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description enhances parameter semantics by emphasizing the recommended combination (content+fileName) over filePath, and clarifies that filePath is local-only. This adds value beyond the schema's descriptions, which are already detailed but do not convey usage preference or environment constraints.

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 description explicitly states 'Uploads file to drive' with a clear verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like nworks_drive_list and nworks_drive_download by focusing on the upload action and specifying two content delivery methods. The OAuth scope requirement adds operational context, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 provides clear usage guidance for the two input methods: it recommends content+fileName for MCP clients and notes that filePath works only in local environments. This helps the agent decide which parameters to use. However, it does not explicitly compare this tool to other drive operations (e.g., when to upload vs. list), though the name makes that obvious.

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