Write a markdown file to a workspace. Creates or updates the file with automatic versioning.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | File path (e.g. "notes/meeting.md") | |
| content | Yes | File content (markdown) | |
| message | No | Optional version message | |
| workspace_id | Yes | Workspace ID to write to |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses creation/update and versioning but lacks details on permissions, conflict resolution, or side effects. No annotations to supplement.
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?
Two efficient sentences frontload the purpose and key behavior (creates or updates with versioning). No wasted words.
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?
Adequate for a simple write tool but lacks usage guidelines and deeper behavioral context given no annotations or 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?
Schema already documents all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). Description adds no extra meaning beyond markdown file context.
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 writes a markdown file to a workspace, distinguishing it from siblings like drive_read and drive_delete by specifying the write operation and automatic versioning.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives such as drive_context or drive_sandbox_write. Missing prerequisites or exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have clear distinct purposes, but drive_context, drive_recall, and drive_search have overlapping retrieval semantics that could confuse an agent. drive_activity and drive_log_run also have potential ambiguity.
All tools follow a consistent 'drive_verb_noun' pattern with clear verbs (e.g., drive_list, drive_write, drive_delete). No mixing of conventions.
20 tools is a reasonable number for a comprehensive workspace management server, covering file operations, collaboration, sandbox, and context retrieval. Not excessive, but slightly above the ideal 3-15 range.
The tool surface covers core CRUD for files, comments, sharing, search, roles, and sandbox features. Missing some minor operations like updating comments or renaming files, but no critical gaps for typical workflows.
