Copy OneDrive Item

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

The description discloses an important behavioral trait: the copy is asynchronous and may return an operation monitor URL. Since no annotations are provided, this partially fulfills the transparency burden. However, it omits details about permissions, error handling, and whether the copy preserves metadata.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. The Chinese intent lines are redundant for an English-only workflow but do not significantly bloat the description. One extra sentence could be trimmed, but overall it is 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?

For a moderately simple asynchronous copy tool, the description covers the primary behavior (async, monitor URL) and all parameters are fully documented in the schema. It could add caveats about long-running operations or failure modes, but it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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?

The input schema already covers all parameters with descriptions at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add alternative meanings or nuances; it only restates the target folder concept in prose.

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 specifies the action ('Copy'), the resource ('OneDrive file or folder'), and the destination ('to another folder'). It also notes asynchronous execution, which distinguishes it from synchronous copy tools and from sibling tools like move or rename. The Chinese intents reinforce the scope.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: when duplicating an item to another folder. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the copy vs. move distinction is implicit via the verb and the sibling tool names (drive_move_item).

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