wrike_copy_folder

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'copy' without explaining side effects, whether the copy is recursive (including tasks and subfolders), permissions required, or that the original folder remains unchanged. The description adds virtually no behavioral context beyond the verb itself.

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 a single concise sentence with no redundant words, making it efficient and front-loaded with the core action. However, its brevity sacrifices helpfulness, as it omits usage and behavioral details that would better assist an agent, making it adequate but not exemplary.

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?

Given the tool has 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, a one-sentence description is insufficient. It does not explain what the operation returns (e.g., the copied folder ID), how the copy options work together, or any constraints on the source/destination folders, leaving significant gaps for an agent to navigate blindly.

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?

The input schema provides descriptions for all 7 parameters, giving 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema already states, such as the meaning of the boolean flags (copyStatuses, copyCustomFields, etc.) or the title field.

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 uses the specific verb 'copy' and identifies the resource as 'folder/project', clearly distinguishing it from sibling operations like create_folder, update_folder, or delete_folder. The phrase 'to another location' conveys the core action, though slightly vague, the intent is unambiguous.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, such as the need for a valid source folder ID or destination parent ID, nor does it contrast with similar tools like create_folder for empty folder creation or update_folder for modifying existing folders.

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