copy

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

Annotations already declare the mutation profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, non-idempotent), and the description adds real context beyond them: it refuses existing targets and verifies both the new copy and the retained source. This confirms the non-destructive intent and describes a post-condition check, though it omits permission/space-failure behavior.

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?

Two compact sentences; the core action and destination-format rule come first, followed by the refusal and verification behavior. No filler.

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?

Output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description covers the main failure mode and verification, missing only permission/overwrite edge cases for full completeness.

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 0%, so the description must carry the burden. It adds critical meaning for destination (must be a complete new path including the file name) but says nothing about the source parameter beyond its obvious name, leaving half the semantics unstated.

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 (copy) and resource (Netdisk file/folder) plus the key scope detail that the destination is a complete new path including the name. It implies differentiation from move/rename by emphasizing a new path with the name, but never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

'Refuses existing targets' gives a useful precondition about when the call will fail, but the description never says when to choose copy over move, rename, or upload. Usage is only implied by the verb.

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