copy_nodes

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

Annotations only declare destructiveHint=false, but the description adds substantial behavior: content deduplication with no re-upload, quota accounting and the QUOTA_EXCEEDED failure mode, all-or-nothing atomicity, and the files:write scope requirement. The idempotency guidance for safe retries is exactly the kind of context annotations do not carry.

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 dense but every sentence carries distinct information: scope, destination, dedup/quota, atomicity, alternative tool, auth, idempotency. The most decision-relevant facts (what it copies, where, the batch_nodes alternative) come first.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out; the description nonetheless notes it returns the new nodes. Quota, atomicity, permission scope, and retry safety are all covered, leaving nothing an agent needs in order to invoke it correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description still adds value by explaining the target_folder_id/target_path mutual fallback to root and framing idempotency_key as the mechanism for safe retries rather than just a 'stable retry key'. It does not add format or syntax detail beyond that.

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 ('Copy one or more files or folders (folders recursively)') and immediately bounds the destination semantics. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings such as move_nodes and batch_nodes.

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?

It states both the when-to-use condition and the alternative: use batch_nodes for per-item results or a dry-run preview. It also resolves the destination ambiguity by saying to omit both target parameters for the root.

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