create_driveCreate a private cloud Drive (plan-limited). Pass client to file it under a client.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | display name for the new drive | |
| client | No | optional: file this under a client (the publish/site is grouped in their customer view) |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / clientAdded value: +{
+ "description": "optional: file this under a client (the publish/site is grouped in their customer view)",
+ "properties": {
+ "clientCompany": {
+ "description": "client's company (used when creating)",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "clientEmail": {
+ "description": "client email — create-or-find by this",
+ "format": "email",
+ "pattern": "^(?!\\.)(?!.*\\.\\.)([A-Za-z0-9_'+\\-\\.]*)[A-Za-z0-9_+-]@([A-Za-z0-9][A-Za-z0-9\\-]*\\.)+[A-Za-z]{2,}$",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "clientId": {
+ "description": "an existing client id (skips lookup)",
+ "format": "uuid",
+ "pattern": "^([0-9a-fA-F]{8}-[0-9a-fA-F]{4}-[1-8][0-9a-fA-F]{3}-[89abAB][0-9a-fA-F]{3}-[0-9a-fA-F]{12}|00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000|ffffffff-ffff-ffff-ffff-ffffffffffff)$",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "clientName": {
+ "description": "client's name (used when creating)",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+}Input schema / properties / name / descriptionAdded value: +"display name for the new drive"Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "result": {}
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "result"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses the creation operation and mentions plan limitations, adding context beyond the idempotentHint annotation. However, it does not detail the behavioral impact (e.g., immediate availability, response structure) or error scenarios.
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 extremely concise with two short sentences that convey the essential information without any filler or repetition.
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 presence of an output schema and the simplicity of the tool, the description is fairly complete. It covers the creation action, resource type, plan restriction, and optional client association. Missing details like error handling are minor for this tool.
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?
The schema already describes both parameters with 100% coverage. The description adds minor value by mentioning the client parameter's purpose ('file it under a client'), but does not provide new information beyond the schema.
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 clearly states the tool's action 'Create a private cloud Drive' and specifies the resource type and a constraint ('plan-limited'). It distinguishes from sibling drive tools like list_drives and drive_delete_file by focusing on creation.
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 guidance on the optional client parameter ('Pass client to file it under a client'), which helps the agent understand when to use that parameter. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or list exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.