drive_files_copy

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions format conversion as a use case, which adds some behavioral context beyond the basic 'copy' action. However, it fails to disclose critical traits: whether this is a read-only or destructive operation (copying implies creation, but permissions needed?), what happens on failure, or any rate limits. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 extremely concise (two short sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word earns its place: the first sentence states the action, the second adds valuable context without redundancy. No wasted words or unnecessary elaboration.

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 this is a mutation tool (copying creates new files) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It should address permissions needed, what the return value contains (e.g., new file ID), error conditions, or how it differs from similar tools like drive_files_export. The format conversion hint is helpful but insufficient for full contextual understanding.

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%, so the schema already documents all 5 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by hinting at the mimeType parameter's role in format conversion, but doesn't provide additional syntax, examples, or constraints beyond what's in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the verb ('Copy') and resource ('a file'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like drive_files_create (new file) and drive_files_update (modify existing) by focusing on duplication. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from drive_files_export (which also converts formats), leaving some ambiguity.

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 an implied usage context ('Useful for converting formats') which suggests when this tool might be preferred over simple copying. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like drive_files_export for format conversion or drive_files_create for new files, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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