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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: the copy runs server-side without the content passing through the model, children are NOT copied, and image references still point at the origin workspace's files.

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 scope before the usage rule and the image caveat. Every sentence carries distinct information, though the image note could arguably be folded in more tightly.

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 no output schema, the description still conveys what the operation does and its side effects (no children, preserved image pointers, server-side execution). It does not state the response shape or what happens on a name collision in the destination, leaving minor gaps for a mutation tool.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters including defaults and the 'omitir = raíz' behavior for destino_parent_document_id. The description adds only the aggregate statement that name and content are copied, not per-parameter syntax or format detail, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 (copiar un documento) plus the exact scope: nombre y contenido, sin sus hijos. It also specifies destination flexibility (otro workspace —o al mismo—) and the server-side execution model, which distinguishes it from create_document and move_document among siblings.

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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use condition ('cuando el mismo documento tiene que estar en dos workspaces') and a recommended workflow (crear uno y copiarlo en vez de generarlo dos veces). It never names move_document as the contrasting alternative, so the routing guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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