Copy Document

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the tool is known to be a non-destructive mutation. The description adds the useful detail that all metadata is copied, but does not disclose behavior like whether an existing document in the target vault is overwritten or idempotency (annotations already say idempotentHint=false). No contradiction between annotations and description.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that starts with the action verb and packs in the source, destination, and scope. Every word earns its place.

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 relatively simple tool with two parameters and an existing output schema, the description covers the core intent and metadata handling. It does not explain edge cases like behavior if doc_id does not exist or if target_vault is invalid, but annotations and output schema partially compensate. Overall, adequate for the tool's complexity.

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 only indirectly maps 'doc_id' to 'a document' and 'target_vault' to 'another vault'. It does not explain parameter formats, constraints, or behavior (e.g., whether target_vault must exist). The param names are self-explanatory, but the description adds minimal semantic value beyond that.

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 operation (copy), the resource (a document), and the scope (from one vault to another, including all metadata). It distinguishes itself from siblings like vault_move_doc by specifying 'copy' rather than 'move'.

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 implies use when a duplicate copy is needed while preserving the original. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like vault_move_doc or provide when-not-to-use guidance. The context is clear but lacks explicit exclusions.

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