copy_document

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

With no annotations, the description bears full burden. It discloses the basic action (copy) and return (new ID) but omits critical traits: whether the copy is deep or shallow, if original is modified, permission requirements, or side effects. The agent gains minimal behavioral insight.

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?

One sentence, no fluff, front-loaded with the action. However, the conciseness sacrifices informative content, leaving the description somewhat terse. Still, it earns a 4 for being efficient.

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 simple tool (1 param, no output schema, no annotations), the description should cover what 'copy' entails, the return format, and any limitations. It is incomplete: does not address what happens to the original, permissions, or if the copy includes all elements.

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 0%, so the description must elaborate. It implies doc_id identifies the source document but adds no format, constraints, or examples. The agent must infer the parameter's role from context.

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 'Create a copy' and identifies the resource 'the document', clearly distinguishing it from siblings like create_document (new blank) or delete_document. It also mentions the return value 'new ID', which is concrete.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like save_as_new or merge_documents. The description does not mention prerequisites (e.g., doc_id must exist) or scenarios where copy is preferred.

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