Duplicate file

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

Annotations already communicate read/write and non-destructive nature. The description adds valuable context about server-side RBAC authorization and explains that a denial means missing scope, not a tool failure. However, it does not disclose naming conventions or behavior when a duplicate name exists.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and includes only necessary context about requirements and authorization. No wasted words.

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 no output schema, so the description should explain what the tool returns or what the copied file is named. It does not. While it covers purpose and auth behavior, the missing success-result info leaves a clear gap for a mutation tool.

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?

The input schema provides 100% parameter coverage, including descriptions for objectKey, storageId, and bucketName. The description only reiterates the bucketName requirement without adding new syntax or format details, so it stays at the baseline 3.

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 explicitly states 'Create a copy of a file in the same location', which is a specific verb+resource+location. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like move_file and rename_file by emphasizing same-location copying.

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 gives a clear prerequisite (requires bucketName) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like move_file or upload_file. Context is implied but not stated.

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