copy_file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the return values (ID and web link), which adds some behavioral context beyond the basic action. However, it doesn't disclose critical traits like whether it requires specific permissions, if it preserves metadata, handles large files, or has rate limits—important for a mutation tool in Google Drive.

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 with zero waste: the first states the purpose, the second specifies the return values. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple tool, with every sentence earning its place by adding 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 a mutation tool with no annotations, 3 parameters, and an output schema (which likely covers return values), the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic action and outputs, but lacks details on permissions, error conditions, or sibling differentiation that would be helpful for an agent in this context.

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 33% (only 'file_id' has a description), so the description must compensate but doesn't add parameter details. It implies copying with optional naming and folder placement via the action, but doesn't explain 'new_name' or 'parent_folder_id' semantics beyond what the schema's null defaults suggest. With low coverage, this is a minimal baseline.

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 action ('Create a copy') and resource ('a file in Google Drive'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from potential alternatives like 'duplicate_file' or explain how it differs from 'move_file' or 'upload_file_to_drive' among the siblings, which would require a 5.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'move_file', 'create_folder', and various upload tools, the description doesn't indicate whether this is for duplicating within the same folder, creating backups, or other specific use cases. The agent must infer usage from the purpose alone.

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