tc_copy_file

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

The description discloses that the copy is server-side, requires a write-enabled environment, supports optional version and metadata, and handles name conflicts by creating a new revision instead of failing. It also notes the constraint that merge_existing cannot be combined with copy_metadata. These details go well beyond the annotations.

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 well-structured with a short summary followed by an args list. It avoids redundancy and includes only necessary operational details, making it easy to scan.

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?

The description explains the return value and key behavioral rules, and it covers all parameters. Combined with the output schema, an agent has enough information to invoke the tool 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 description explains all six parameters with concrete meaning: project_id, file_id, target_folder_id, version_id, copy_metadata, and merge_existing. It clarifies defaults (latest version) and the conflict resolution behavior, which the schema does not provide.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Copy') and resource ('one file') and specifies the destination ('another folder'). This clearly differentiates the tool from siblings like tc_copy_folder, tc_move_item, and tc_upload_new_version.

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 gives operational context: it requires TC_ENABLE_WRITE=1 and enforces that source and target are in the same project. It does not explicitly name alternatives but the use case is clearly scoped to copying a single file, which implies when to use it.

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