ecp_files_copy

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys that the operation is a copy (source preserved, destination created) but omits critical behavior such as overwrite semantics, whether the destination is a directory path or a full file path, handling of existing destinations, and whether intermediate directories are created. For a file-operation tool this is a significant gap.

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 a single short sentence that conveys the core action immediately. It is concise and front-loaded, though it achieves this by omitting behavioral details. For conciseness itself, it scores well.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description is the only context. It fails to mention overwrite behavior, directory creation, destination interpretation, error handling, or how this differs from move/copy_multiple. The description is too minimal to support correct invocation in edge cases, though the basic copy operation is understandable.

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 only parameter names (file_path, destination) with no descriptions or formats interested. The description names the parameters implicitly ('Copy one file/folder to a destination') but adds no detail about path syntax, directory-vs-file semantics, or naming behavior. Some meaning can be inferred from parameter names, but the description does not clarify critical details such as whether destination is a directory or a full target path.

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 a clear verb ('Copy') and a clear object ('one file/folder to a destination'), so an agent can tell this is a copy operation. However, it does not distinguish itself from closely related siblings like ecp_files_copy_multiple, ecp_files_move, or ecp_files_rename beyond the word 'one'. The purpose is minimally clear but lacks any differentiation from alternative tools.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus ecp_files_copy_multiple, ecp_files_move, or ecp_files_add_file. There are no conditions, prerequisites, or examples indicating appropriate use. An agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name and sibling names.

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