copy-drive-item

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

The description's semantics ('copy', 'duplicating', 'preserving an immutable snapshot') directly conflict with annotations' destructiveHint=true. Even though the description usefully discloses async execution and the 202/Location monitor response, the rubric requires a score of 1 when the description contradicts an annotation.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the operation, then gives a compact body example, response note, and use cases. It is efficient and scannable, though the three-item use-case list is slightly more expansive than strictly necessary.

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, mentioning '202 Accepted with a Location header pointing at a monitor URL' is helpful, but the async workflow is incomplete: it never says to poll the monitor URL, explains failure behavior, or covers body options such as childrenOnly and includeAllVersionHistory. Adequate, but with 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 83%, so the schema does most of the parameter documentation work. The description adds value beyond it with a concrete body example ('parentReference: { driveId: '...', id: '...' }, name?: 'New Name.xlsx'') and by connecting the 'new location and/or name' idea to the body fields.

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 opens with 'Copy a drive item' and elaborates 'Asynchronously copy a file or folder to a new location and/or name.' This gives a specific verb, resource, and scope, and it is naturally distinct from sibling move, delete, and share operations.

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?

The description gives concrete when-to-use guidance: 'Ideal for duplicating templates..., bulk file provisioning, or preserving an immutable snapshot.' It clearly sets context but does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or name alternatives, so it falls short of a full 5.

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