Copiar arquivo ou pasta

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

With all annotations false, the description carries the full burden and succeeds: it discloses recursive copying, that the original is preserved, that an existing destination produces a conflict error by default, that conflictStrategy='rename' auto-generates a free name, and that operations are confined to authorized folders. This goes well beyond what annotations or schema reveal.

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 appropriately sized: core operation and conflict behavior come first, followed by required user-communication steps. Every sentence carries useful information, including the instruction not to cite the technical tool name. It is slightly long but not padded, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential operational constraints: authorized folders, non-overwrite default, conflict resolution via rename, original retention, and user-facing confirmation steps. It does not specify success return values, but this is a simple copy operation and the description is otherwise complete enough for correct invocation.

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 adds meaningful value by explaining the conflictStrategy behavior in detail (error vs. rename) and by clarifying that copy is recursive and destination-paths must respect authorized folders. This enriches the otherwise minimal schema parameter descriptions.

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: 'Copia um arquivo ou pasta (recursivamente) para outro local'. It clearly states the scope (within authorized folders) and explicitly says the original remains in place, which distinguishes it from mover_item. An agent can tell this is a non-moving copy operation without needing to inspect siblings.

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 provides clear context for use: it copies recursively only within authorized folders, and the default conflict behavior is explained. The phrase 'o arquivo original será mantido no lugar de origem' implicitly differentiates it from mover_item. However, it does not explicitly name when to prefer this tool over alternatives or state a when-not-to-use condition, so it falls short of a 5.

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