Copy Google Doc

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true). The description adds value beyond them by explaining that a brand-new document is produced with a new title and that the response includes the new ID and URL, which compensates for the absence of an output schema.

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?

Three compact sentences that are front-loaded with the core action, followed by return info and a use case. No filler or 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?

Covers what the tool does, roughly what is preserved, the return values, and a use case, which is sufficient for a simple two-parameter tool. The only minor gap is not stating that repeated calls yield distinct new documents (consistent with idempotentHint=false).

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%, and the schema already documents both parameters, including the accepted URL format for documentId. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (Create a copy) and resource (existing Google Doc) plus the scope of what is copied (content and formatting). It is clearly distinct from destructive or read tools, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling create_document, which is a natural point of confusion.

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?

Gives clear usage context ('useful for templates or making a backup before large edits'), which tells an agent when this tool is appropriate. However, it names no alternatives or exclusions, so it does not explicitly contrast with create_document or get_document.

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