copy

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden; it does disclose a critical nontrivial trait ('operation fails if the destination path already exists'), which is genuinely valuable for an agent. However, it leaves other behaviors undisclosed, such as whether intermediate directories are created, what the call returns on success, and whether source metadata/permissions are preserved.

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 sentences with zero waste: the first states the purpose, and the second front-loads a critical failure condition with an IMPORTANT marker. Every sentence earns its place and the most decision-relevant constraint is highly visible.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description could reasonably explain what a successful copy returns or confirms, but does not. The critical correctness details (recursive requirement, destination naming, failure-on-existing) are covered across the description and full-coverage schema, leaving only minor edge-behavior gaps.

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 100%, so the baseline of 3 applies; the description itself adds no parameter-level detail. The schema already documents the important constraints (dst_path must include the target name, recursive must be true for directories), so no compensation is needed.

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 specific verb ('Copies') and resource ('file or directory to a new location'), making the core purpose immediately clear. It differentiates from the closest sibling `move` through the verb itself, but does not explicitly name or contrast against `move` or `write`, so it falls short of the strongest sibling differentiation.

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 no guidance on when to use `copy` versus its most similar sibling `move` (e.g., use copy when the original must be preserved, move when it should be relocated), nor does it mention any alternatives for file creation like `write`. The only guidance present is operational (fails if destination exists), not usage routing.

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