object_copy

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It does disclose the key non-destructive behavior: an existing destination is not replaced unless overwrite=true. However, it omits other meaningful behaviors such as checkpoint handling, failure semantics, and what happens when the destination exists but overwrite is false.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the core operation and the most important guardrail, overwrite behavior, immediately and efficiently.

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 tool with five parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It leaves path format and semantics undocumented, does not explain object_type selection, and fails to mention the checkpoint behavior hinted at by allow_without_checkpoint. An agent would need additional information to use the tool reliably in edge cases.

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 little beyond the schema, and the two required parameters, source_path and dest_path, have no descriptions in either the schema or the tool description. The overwrite behavior is already documented in the schema's overwrite parameter, so the description is largely redundant here rather than additive.

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 names a specific action ('Copy') and a specific resource ('an IC-CAP object'), and clarifies that it does not overwrite by default. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like object_create, object_delete, and object_rename.

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 intended use case is implied: copy an object rather than create, delete, or rename it. However, the description does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives or when not to use it, leaving the guidance mostly inferential.

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