copy_drive_file

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explains that the copy maintains formatting and content, defaults the new name to 'Copy of [original name]', and defaults the destination to root. It also describes the return value. It does not mention permission requirements for the source file, but the core behavior is transparent.

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 well-organized with a summary, a brief explanatory sentence, an Args list, and a Returns section. The first two sentences are slightly redundant ('Creates a copy' vs 'copies the template document'), but overall the structure is clear and front-loaded.

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 description provides all information an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly: the action, parameter semantics with defaults, and return format. The topic is a simple copy operation, and no critical details are 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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does. The Args section explains all four parameters, including the optional nature of new_name with its fallback behavior, and the default value of parent_folder_id. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema types.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Creates a copy of an existing Google Drive file.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like create_drive_file (which creates from scratch) and update_drive_file (which modifies existing files).

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 implies the tool is for duplicating a file when you want to preserve formatting and content while placing it in a new location. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives such as create_drive_file, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites.

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