copy_document

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

With no annotations, the description must cover behavioral traits. It states the copy is a 'snapshot' and that source and session are unchanged, which is appropriate. However, it does not address whether the destination file is overwritten if it exists, or any potential errors, leaving some 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 extremely concise, with the primary action in the first sentence, followed by a note on session impact, and then structured args/returns. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 is simple (one parameter, output schema exists), the description covers the core functionality, return format, and a parameter constraint. It lacks details on overwrite behavior and error cases, but for a copy operation this is mostly sufficient.

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 description adds a critical constraint on the 'output_path' parameter: 'must end in .docx,' which is not in the schema. This adds value beyond the schema's plain 'string' type. It could also mention path formats, but the given information is helpful.

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 'Save a complete snapshot of the open document to a new path.' This identifies the specific action (copy) and resource (document). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling 'save_document' which saves to the current path, leaving some 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 mentions 'The active session and source path are unchanged,' which implies it is safe to use without disrupting current work. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'save_document' or other copy tools, nor does it list conditions where it should not be used.

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