Copy a Google Drive file to a new name and convert its format, such as changing markdown to Google Doc.
Copy a file. Useful for converting formats (e.g. markdown to Google Doc).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Name for the copy | |
| fields | No | Fields to return | |
| fileId | Yes | Source file ID to copy | |
| parents | No | Parent folder IDs (JSON array as string) | |
| mimeType | No | Target MIME type for conversion |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false). The description adds the conversion use case but does not disclose side effects such as creating a new file with a new ID or leaving the original unchanged, which would add value beyond the 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?
Two short sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the conversion example earns its place by clarifying a common use case.
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?
The schema fully documents parameters and annotations cover safety, but the description omits return behavior and does not clarify how this tool relates to drive_files_export for conversion tasks. It is adequate for a simple copy operation but has clear gaps.
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 schema documents all five parameters. The description's conversion example adds slight context for mimeType, but it does not explain the parameters beyond what the schema already provides, matching the baseline of 3.
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 states a specific verb and resource ('Copy a file') and adds a concrete use case (converting markdown to Google Doc). It is clear, but it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from siblings like drive_files_export, so it falls short of a 5.
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?
'Useful for converting formats' gives an implied scenario for when to use the tool, but it does not name alternatives or state when not to use it. The guidance is present but not explicit enough to route an agent away from similar file operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.