copy-drive-item

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, lowering the bar. The description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: the operation is asynchronous, returns 202 Accepted, and provides a Location header pointing to a monitor URL. This discloses the expected response pattern and async nature without contradicting the annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose ('Copy a drive item') followed by a labeled TIP that adds async semantics, body format, response behavior, and use cases in four compact sentences. Every sentence contributes meaningful information, and the structure is easy to scan.

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 has no output schema, the description appropriately covers the return behavior (202 Accepted + Location header for async monitoring). It also addresses the complex nested body schema with an example. It could optionally explain how to consume the monitor URL or handle job completion, but for an async copy operation the essential context is present.

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 high (83%), providing a baseline of 3. The description adds a concrete body example ('{ parentReference: { driveId: '...', id: '...' }, name?: 'New Name.xlsx' }') that demonstrates how to structure the complex nested body parameter, which goes beyond the schema's property list by showing a realistic usage pattern.

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+resource ('Copy a drive item') and elaborates with 'Asynchronously copy a file or folder to a new location and/or name.' It clearly distinguishes from the sibling move-rename-onedrive-item by framing the operation as creating a copy, and the template-cloning use cases reinforce the copy semantics.

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 provides clear context with 'Ideal for duplicating templates... bulk file provisioning, or preserving an immutable snapshot of a working file,' giving concrete usage scenarios. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions relative to move-rename-onedrive-item, but the use cases strongly imply when copying is appropriate.

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