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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=false and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds value beyond that by confirming 'The original is untouched' and disclosing the return payload ('Returns the copy's id and name'). It stops short of noting permission requirements on the source file or whether sharing settings carry over to the copy.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and non-destructive guarantee, followed by the return value and the practical use case. No filler or redundancy.

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?

With six parameters and no output schema, the description correctly compensates by stating the return value (id and name) and the non-destructive guarantee. The auxiliary parameters (person, project, dry_run) are left entirely to the schema, which is acceptable given 100% coverage, though a note on what dry_run previews would have closed the loop.

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 name, parent_id, person, project, and dry_run are all documented in the schema itself. The description's 'optionally under a new name and in another folder' only restates the name and parent_id parameters and adds no syntax, format, or default behavior beyond what the schema already declares.

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 ('Make a copy of one file in the connected Google Drive') with explicit scope of 'one file'. The copy verb inherently separates it from sibling tools like connections_storage_move_google_drive_files, connections_storage_rename_google_drive_file, and connections_storage_save_file without needing to name them.

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?

Provides a concrete motivating use case: giving a member their own editable copy of a file someone else shared with them. It doesn't name an alternative tool or state when not to use it (e.g., vs. save_file for new uploads), but the context for choosing it is clear.

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