gsuite

google-drive_update_file

Update file metadata in Google Drive. Change name, description, parents, starred status, or move to trash.

Instructions

Update file metadata

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "fileId": "<fileId>"
    },
    "name": "google-drive_update_file"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	No	New name for the file
`fields`	No	Comma-separated list of fields to return in response
`fileId`	Yes	ID of the file to update
`parents`	No	Array of parent folder IDs
`starred`	No	Whether to star the file
`trashed`	No	Whether to move the file to trash
`description`	No	New description for the file
`supportsAllDrives`	No	Whether to support files in shared drives

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.4.0Jul 13, 2026

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, and the description lacks details on side effects, such as whether updating certain fields (e.g., trashed) affects sharing or file accessibility. The word 'update' implies mutation but no further behavioral context is given.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise (two words), which is efficient but lacks structure. It does not elaborate on the tool's purpose or behavior, making it minimally adequate.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with 8 parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain return values or provide context for complex parameters like 'parents' (object) or 'fields'. More context would be helpful given the tool's complexity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema covers all 8 parameters with descriptions, achieving 100% schema description coverage. The tool's description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Update file metadata' clearly indicates the tool modifies file metadata, distinguishing it from create, delete, get, list, search, and share tools. However, it doesn't explicitly specify what metadata aspects are covered beyond the schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., creating a new file or deleting). No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

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