Copy File

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false but say nothing about synchronicity, so the description's disclosure that the copy runs in the background and returns an operation_id is genuinely additive. It still omits whether copying overwrites an existing name or what permissions are required, and does not reinforce the non-idempotent annotation.

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 tight sentences with zero filler; the core action is front-loaded and the async follow-up is placed immediately after it.

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?

Because an output schema exists, the return values need no elaboration, and the description usefully clarifies that the immediate result is an operation_id rather than a finished copy. It stops short of noting the destination_id/destination_path trade-off, but that gap is minor.

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 100%, so all five parameters including the item_id/new_name/destination_id/destination_path distinctions are already documented. The description adds only the high-level notion of a destination folder, which the schema covers in more detail — baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb (Copy) plus resource (OneDrive file or folder) and target (another folder), so the agent can distinguish it from generic siblings like m365_update or drive_upload. It does not explicitly contrast with the nearest sibling m365_move, which handles relocation rather than duplication.

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?

It tells the agent what to do after invoking (poll m365_get with resource='operation'), which is useful staging guidance, but it never states when to choose copy over move or upload. Usage is implied by the tool name rather than stated.

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