copy_object

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden. It adds one behavioral constraint ('same endpoint') but does not disclose whether the destination object is overwritten, whether metadata is preserved, whether the copy is atomic, or what permissions are required. This is a significant gap for a mutating operation.

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 filler, and the action verb is front-loaded. Every word earns its place, though brevity comes at the expense of substantive guidance.

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 copy operation with no annotations, no parameter docs, and an unknown output schema, the description is insufficient. It omits overwrite behavior, metadata handling, permission requirements, and failure modes, leaving an agent without enough context to call the tool reliably.

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 0% and the description provides no parameter semantics. Even though parameter names are self-explanatory, the description adds nothing beyond the schema, failing to explain relationships or constraints among src_bucket, src_key, dst_bucket, dst_key (e.g., that buckets must be on the same endpoint).

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 a specific verb ('Copy') and resource ('object'), and clearly states the scope ('within or across buckets on the same endpoint'), which distinguishes it from list/get/put/delete tools. However, it does not explicitly contrast with put_object+get_object as an alternative, so it falls just short of full differentiation.

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 given on when to use this tool versus siblings such as put_object, presign_put, or get_object+put_object for manual copy workflows. No prerequisites, permissions, or conditions for selection are mentioned.

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