drive_copy_file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of disclosing side effects. It only states 'Copy a file' with no details about whether permissions are preserved, whether the copy goes to the same folder by default, or whether it creates a new file ID. This is a significant gap for a mutation operation.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler words. It is extremely concise and easy to parse, which earns a high score for conciseness despite lacking substance in other dimensions.

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 tool has three parameters, no annotations, and an output schema (though its content is not shown). The description is too minimal to fully guide an agent: it does not explain the required file_id, the optional name and folder_id defaults, or what the returned output represents. Some context is inferable from the tool name, but the description leaves critical 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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention any of the three parameters (name, file_id, folder_id). The agent receives no additional context about what these parameters mean or how they affect the copy operation, so the description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 identifies the specific action (copy) and resource (file in Google Drive), which is enough to distinguish it from unrelated siblings like drive_trash or gmail_send. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from drive_create_file, which could be ambiguous in some contexts, so it falls short of 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as drive_create_file or drive_export. It does not mention any prerequisites, destination constraints, or scenarios where copying is appropriate.

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