drive_copy

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full load. It does disclose two genuine behavioral traits — the automatic naming ("Copy of <name>") and the resulting navigation state ("Drive is left in the destination folder, where the copy is checked") — but omits whether sharing/permissions are inherited by the copy, whether folders can be copied recursively, and what happens on name collisions.

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?

It is short and front-loads the action, which is good. However, the quoted UI label "Make a copy" is redundant noise and the second sentence ("Drive is left in the destination folder, where the copy is checked") is grammatically garbled, forcing the agent to guess at its meaning.

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?

This is a mutating tool with zero annotations and no output schema, so the description should state prerequisites, permission/sharing inheritance, and collision behavior — none of which appear. Post-operation state is mentioned, but an agent still cannot predict side effects on the duplicated item's sharing or size limits.

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 all five parameters (name, path, index, occurrence, destination) are already documented, including destination defaults. The description adds nothing parameter-specific beyond the naming outcome, so the 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Make a copy of a file") and adds the resulting name convention ("Copy of <name>"), so the agent knows exactly what operation this performs. It never contrasts itself with nearby siblings such as drive_move, drive_rename, or drive_upload, though none of those overlap enough to cause real confusion.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance: nothing says to locate the item first via drive.list/drive.search (only the schema's 'index' description implies it), nothing says copies of folders are or aren't supported, and nothing excludes alternatives. The only contextual hint is the post-operation sentence, which describes state rather than selection criteria.

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