copy_document

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool creates a copy, implying a write operation, but doesn't mention any behavioral traits such as permissions required, whether it overwrites existing files, error handling for missing source files, or the format/location of the copied document. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves in practice.

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, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the core functionality without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the main action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. There's no wasted verbiage or redundant information.

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 complexity of a file-copy operation with 2 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., success status, file path of the copy), error conditions, or dependencies. For a mutation tool with undocumented parameters, more context is needed to ensure reliable use.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the input schema provides no descriptions for the two parameters. The description adds no information about what 'source_filename' and 'destination_filename' represent (e.g., file paths, naming conventions, supported formats) or how they should be used. This fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation, leaving parameters largely unexplained.

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 ('Create a copy') and resource ('Word document'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from other document manipulation tools in the sibling list, such as 'create_document' or 'convert_to_pdf', which also involve document creation/transformation 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For instance, it doesn't specify whether this should be used instead of 'create_document' for duplicating content or how it relates to 'list_available_documents' for selecting source files. The description lacks any context about prerequisites or typical use cases.

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