docx.copy

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action but does not address critical behaviors such as whether the target file is overwritten if it exists, whether the original document remains open, or which document becomes the active one after copying. The phrase 'and open it' hints at a modal change but does not explain implications for the session. This under-specification is a significant gap.

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, well-formed sentence with no redundancy. The action is front-loaded and every word is necessary. It is concise without sacrificing clarity, achieving maximum efficiency.

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?

The tool has no annotations, no output schema, and only two parameters, yet the description still lacks essential context for correct invocation. It does not explain what 'open' means in the tool ecosystem (e.g., becomes the active document), what happens to the existing open document, or what the tool returns (if anything). An agent could make incorrect assumptions about side effects and return values, making the description incomplete for 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (sourceDocId and targetPath) are already documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional semantic value, such as examples or validation rules. The baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema already handles parameter documentation.

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 states a precise action: copy a document to a new file and open it. The verb 'copy' is specific, the resource is clear (document), and the outcome includes opening the new file. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like docx.open (which only opens) and docx.save (which saves), so there is no ambiguity.

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 usage (copying a document) but does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives like docx.open or docx.save. It does not mention exclusions or provide routing guidance, leaving the agent to infer from the context. This is adequate but lacks proactive differentiation.

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