Copy resource

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. But the description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say whether recursive directory copies are supported, whether an existing destination causes an error, or what the 'overwrite' default of false actually means in practice — the key behavioral question for a copy tool.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero waste, which is structurally good. The problem is that it is under-specified rather than concise: one short clause cannot cover a mutation tool with an ambiguous overwrite flag.

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?

With three parameters, no output schema and 0% schema coverage, the description should explain destination-conflict behavior and directory semantics. It supplies none of that, so an agent cannot confidently call this tool correctly when the destination exists or when copying a folder tree.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden of explaining three parameters and it explains none. source_path and dest_path are self-evident from their names, but 'overwrite' (default false) is genuinely ambiguous — fail vs. skip vs. silently overwrite — and the description offers no clarification.

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 (file or directory), so the operation is unambiguous on its own. However, it does nothing to distinguish itself from the near-identical sibling nextcloud_copy_item (nor from nextcloud_move_resource/move_item), leaving the agent to guess which copy tool applies.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all: no mention of when to prefer this over nextcloud_copy_item, no prerequisites, and no indication of what happens when the destination already exists. The agent must infer everything from the tool name.

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