storage_copy

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load and does disclose the most important behavior: it refuses to overwrite an existing destination unless overwrite is true, which is the key safety trait for a copy tool. It also notes cross-bucket capability. It omits whether folder copies are recursive, whether missing destination parents are created, auth requirements, and return shape.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that leads with the action and resource, then layers in the folder convention and the overwrite guard. No filler wording to remove.

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 5-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the operation, the folder form, cross-bucket scope, and the overwrite guard. It falls short only on recursive-folder semantics and what the call returns, which would help an agent calling it on large prefixes.

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 coverage is 100% and every property is documented in the schema itself, so the baseline is 3. The description restates the folder-trailing-slash convention for path/to and the same-or-other-bucket idea already covered by bucket/toBucket, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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 (Copy) and resource (Storage object or folder), plus scope: same or another bucket. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling storage_move, but copy-vs-move is clear enough from the wording that an agent can pick correctly.

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?

Usage is only implied: the description makes clear this duplicates rather than relocates data, and that folders ending in / are valid sources. There is no explicit 'use this instead of storage_move when...' routing, and no stated preconditions (e.g., destination folder existence).

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