Copy a file to another folder or with a new name. Destination defaults to original folder; folders cannot be copied.
WRITES. Copy a file, optionally with a new name and into another folder. Folders cannot be copied.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | Default: "Copy of <name>". | |
| fileId | Yes | ||
| folderId | No | Destination folder. Default: same folder as the original. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. Leading with 'WRITES.' usefully flags the mutation, and the folder exclusion sets a boundary, but it says nothing about permission requirements, whether sharing/permissions are replicated to the copy, or any rate/quota effects.
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 short sentences, mutation flag front-loaded, every clause carrying information. No filler or redundancy.
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 no-annotation, no-output-schema write tool, the description covers purpose and one constraint but omits behavior an agent would want before chaining, notably what the call returns (e.g. the new file's ID) and any permission/sharing carry-over. Adequate but with clear gaps.
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 coverage is 67%, and the description's 'optionally with a new name and into another folder' merely restates the optionality and meaning already documented in the schema defaults. It adds no format, syntax, or ID-handling detail beyond what the properties 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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Copy a file') and adds a real scope constraint ('Folders cannot be copied'), which separates it from create_file/upload_file and prevents a mistargeted call. It stops short of naming which sibling to use for the cases it excludes.
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 no when-to-use framing relative to the many adjacent siblings (create_file, upload_file, update_file_content). The only routing-adjacent statement is the negative constraint about folders, which is a limitation rather than guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.