acc_copy_file

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

With only readOnlyHint=false in annotations, the description adds valuable behavioral context: it creates a 'NEW document' (no overwrite) and explains the API limitation for moves. It does not fully detail side effects like metadata preservation, but it goes beyond what annotations provide.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by a critical constraint. No filler or repetition. Every sentence adds value.

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 an output schema exists and all params are documented, the description sufficiently explains the tool's purpose, use case, and a key API limitation. It doesn't explain every edge case (like preserving custom attributes) but is complete for typical usage.

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 parameters. The description does not add parameter-specific details, but it reinforces context like 'same project' and 'NEW document'. This meets the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb+resource+outcome ('Copy a file version into another folder of the same project as a NEW document') and clearly distinguishes from siblings by mentioning the WIP → Shared/Published hand-off. It is not a tautology and fully conveys what the tool does.

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?

Explicitly states when to use it ('typical WIP → Shared / Published hand-off when not using an ACC review workflow') and gives an exclusion/alternative ('when not using an ACC review workflow'). Also clarifies that ACC cannot move items via API, so copy then delete in UI if a move is required.

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