eds_da_copy_source

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

The description adds the authentication requirement (EDS_DA_TOKEN) and specifies the source must be an 'authored source document,' providing some behavioral context. However, it does not disclose whether the destination will be overwritten, how conflicts are handled, or what the tool returns. With no annotations, these omissions leave notable gaps.

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 sentence of 14 words, front-loaded with the core operation and quickly noting the auth requirement. No unnecessary words.

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?

For a two-parameter copy tool, the description covers the basics and the auth prerequisite. However, the lack of an output schema and annotations means the description should also address expected outcomes or failure modes (e.g., destination exists). This is missing, so completeness is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 clear descriptions for both parameters ('Source DA document path' and 'Destination DA document path'), giving 100% coverage. The description does not add additional semantics beyond this, such as path format or restrictions, 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.

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

The description clearly states the action (copy), the resource (authored source document), and the destination (another path in Document Authoring). It implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like eds_da_move_source by specifying copy rather than move.

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 implies using this tool when a copy is needed, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives such as eds_da_move_source for relocating or eds_da_put_source for creating. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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