abort_upload

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

Goes beyond the single destructiveHint annotation by disclosing what is destroyed (staged parts and staged data), what is guaranteed not to happen (nothing added to the drive), and the required scope (files:upload). The one destructiveHint=false is not contradicted because the effect is scoped to staged, not existing, content. It stops short of covering idempotency (aborting an already-aborted upload) or error behavior.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the effect, then the trigger and the alternative, then the return and scope. No filler or redundant restatement of the name.

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?

An output schema exists and 'Returns success' aligns with it, so return values need no elaboration. Effect, trigger, alternative, and auth scope are all present; only edge cases like re-aborting or invalid upload_id are unaddressed.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters are already documented, and the description adds nothing about upload_id handling or the presence of limit/first_part. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries parameter meaning.

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?

States a specific verb (cancel/abort) and resource (upload created by prepare_upload), plus the concrete effect: stop accepting parts, delete staged data, nothing added to the drive. This clearly distinguishes it from completion/wait/get_upload_parts siblings.

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?

Gives explicit triggers (user cancels, local file changed) and names the alternative for the contrasting case ('to continue an interrupted upload instead, use get_upload_parts'). An agent can route correctly without inference.

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