Upload file

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

The description richly discloses behavior beyond annotations: files are read from the local machine, files up to 8 MiB are sent in one piece while larger ones are split, existing files are never overwritten because a timestamped name is used, and auth failures indicate an API key scope problem rather than a tool malfunction. This is exactly the kind of behavioral detail an agent needs.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: scope, source location, size handling, collision behavior, and auth semantics are all covered without redundancy. The main action is front-loaded.

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?

For a tool with five parameters and no output schema, the description covers the important operational details: path semantics, bucket requirement, size thresholds, collision policy, and auth failure interpretation. It does not explain what the tool returns or how an agent would track an upload via the sibling upload_status tool, which is a minor gap.

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 adds extra value beyond the schema by explaining that localPath refers to the server's machine and cautioning about invisible characters, by telling users where to find bucketName in the CloudSee dashboard, and by noting that fileName defaults to the local file's name. This goes beyond simple schema repetition.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Upload a file into a folder of a drive.' It clearly differentiates this from the sibling tools by focusing on the act of uploading a local file to a drive, while leaving listing, downloading, and metadata operations to those other tools.

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?

It gives clear practical context: the file must be read from the machine running the server, the bucketName is required unless a default is configured, and file size determines multi-part behavior. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives such as upload_status or state when not to use this tool.

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