drive_copy_file

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it delivers richly: server-side copying, type preservation, description appending, name-conflict refusal, folder-source refusal, and no source mutation. It even explains cross-location behavior like copying from My Drive into a shared drive. This is far beyond the minimum.

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 long but every section earns its place given the lack of annotations. It is front-loaded with the core action, then covers mechanics, edge cases, and exclusions. Minor redundancy exists between 'rather than overwriting it' and 'it cannot ... overwrite anything,' but the overall structure remains efficient for the behavioral depth provided.

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 is thorough for a four-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema: it covers what happens server-side, edge cases, refusal conditions, and what the operation does not do. The only notable omission is the shape of the return value, which is not described at all, but everything needed to invoke it correctly and predict behavior is present.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful parameter behavior beyond the schema: it clarifies the 'same account' constraint, the destination folder semantics, the copy-name conflict rule, and that fileId must not be a folder. This enriches the parameters without being redundant.

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 a Google Drive file into a folder on the same account, optionally under a new name.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like drive_move_file, drive_trash_file, or drive_export_file. The rest of the description reinforces the scope by listing what the tool cannot do.

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 strong context for when this tool is appropriate: it is a copy-only operation that never deletes, moves, renames, shares, or overwrites. It also states explicit refusals for name conflicts and folder sources. It does not name the sibling tools to use for those other operations, but the exclusionary guidance is clear enough for an agent to route around them.

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