Download an iCloud Drive file to a local file or directory, keeping the original filename when a directory is given. Retrieves from the local copy first when available.
Save a Drive file to a local path (a directory keeps the file's name). Local copy first.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| dest | Yes | ||
| path | Yes | ||
| overwrite | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It hints at destination behavior (directory vs file) and a vague "Local copy first," but discloses nothing about permission needs, what happens on an existing file, or failure/partial-write behavior for what is effectively a download that writes to disk.
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?
Highly compact and front-loaded with the core action, with no filler. The trailing fragment "Local copy first" is terse to the point of ambiguity, slightly hurting clarity for no length gain.
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, so return values need not be explained. However, for a tool that writes to the local filesystem with no annotations and 0% parameter documentation, the description should cover overwrite behavior, permissions, and failure semantics; it does not.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It partially explains the destination argument's directory-vs-file behavior but says nothing about the required source path and completely omits the overwrite parameter (which defaults to false), leaving an agent unable to tell how collisions are handled.
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 and resource ("Save a Drive file to a local path") and clarifies the destination semantics (a directory keeps the file's name). It is clear enough to distinguish from upload/write siblings, though it never names or contrasts them explicitly.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this versus icloud_read_file, icloud_upload, or other siblings, and no prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is only implied by the verb "Save."
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.