copy_file

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

The description adds the permission requirement (file-write access) which is useful, but it does not explain the destination of the copy, overwrite behavior, or any other side effects. The phrase 'in place' is confusing and adds little transparency beyond the annotations.

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 short and to the point, with no redundancy. However, it is so brief that it omits essential details, and the structure does not help clarify what 'in place' means or how the tool behaves.

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?

For a tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description should clarify how the copy destination is determined and how server_id is used. Sibling tools like rename_file and write_file are not distinguished, making the description incomplete for an agent choosing among file operations.

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 description mentions neither 'path' nor 'server_id'. With 0% schema coverage, the parameter names must carry all meaning. 'Server_id' is particularly unclear—it could identify a target server, but its role in copying a file is not explained.

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 states the verb 'copy' and the resource 'file', giving a basic purpose. However, 'in place' is ambiguous and the description does not distinguish copy_file from sibling tools like rename_file or write_file.

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?

No guidance is provided for when to use this tool versus alternatives such as rename_file or write_file. The only contextual hint is the permission requirement, which does not clarify usage scenarios.

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