gdrive_copy

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses that the operation duplicates rather than moves the original, supports optional renaming/re-parenting, and that dry_run=True previews without committing. It stops short of mentioning permission requirements or name-collision behavior, but the core side-effect profile is clear.

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 compact and well-organized: purpose first, then discovery prerequisite, use/not-for guidance, dry-run note, and an args list. Every section adds value and there is minimal redundancy with the schema.

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 tool with six parameters, no annotations, and zero schema coverage, the description covers the operation, workflow prerequisites, sibling alternative, dry-run behavior, and all argument meanings. Minor gaps around how name-based and ID-based references are resolved remain, but an output schema exists so return-value details need not be repeated.

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%, and the description compensates by explaining each of the six arguments in plain language, including the useful note that file_id is 'preferred when known'. It does not fully specify precedence between file_name/file_id or destination_folder/destination_folder_id, but the provided semantics are sufficient for basic 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?

Opens with 'Copy a Google Drive file, optionally renaming and/or placing under a new folder' — a specific verb and resource. It further clarifies the purpose as 'duplicating a file/template' and explicitly contrasts with gdrive_move, making sibling differentiation clear.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: 'Use this for: duplicating a file/template. Not for: moving the original file — see gdrive_move.' It also instructs the agent to run gdrive_search or gdrive_list_folder first to obtain required identifiers, so the when and how are both covered.

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