Copy Media

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

Annotations declare the safety profile (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true), and the description adds genuinely non-obvious context beyond that: the exact permission scopes required, delegated-token behavior, the confirm gate, and that the operation may share access, notify people, or incur provider charges. That is real added value, though it doesn't explain what specifically is destroyed or how the copy behaves on conflicts.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by clearly chunked requirement blocks. The permission block is somewhat verbose, but each sentence carries operative information rather than filler.

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 7-parameter mutation with nested payload options and no output schema, the description covers auth, confirmation, and side effects adequately. It leaves the copy-vs-move-vs-bulk routing and any post-copy result expectations unaddressed, but nothing essential to invoking it correctly is missing.

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 100%, so the parameters (owner, folder_id, account, confirm, payload variants, file payload) are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds only the default-destination nuance, which the schema also states, so it earns the baseline rather than more.

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 — copies a media and its assets to a destination folder — with the default destination behavior given inline. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from close siblings like bulk_copy_media or move_media, but an agent can still tell what this single-item operation does.

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?

Useful context is given: the required permission scopes, the delegated-permission alternative, and the confirm=true requirement. However, it never says when to prefer this over bulk_copy_media or move_media, nor when not to use it, so routing between siblings is left to inference.

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