cos_copy_object

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

No annotations are provided, and the description fails to disclose any behavioral traits. It does not specify whether the copy preserves metadata, whether it is synchronous, or any side effects like overwriting existing objects.

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 only one sentence, which is concise but lacks essential details. It does not earn its place given the minimal information it provides, leaving significant gaps for the agent to fill.

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 complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is highly incomplete. It does not explain parameter constraints, the scope of 'within COS', or any return values, making it inadequate for proper tool 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?

The input schema has 5 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the tool description adds no meaning to these parameters. The agent must infer parameter roles from names alone, which is insufficient for correct invocation.

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 the action 'copy' and the resource 'object within COS', which clearly identifies the tool's purpose. It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like cos_put_object or cos_get_object, as copying is a distinct operation.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, there is no mention of whether to use copy instead of get+put, or any prerequisites or context for using the tool.

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