copy_file

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description explains the exact overwrite condition: existing destinations are not overwritten unless overwrite=true. This gives the agent concrete knowledge about when the destructive behavior occurs, though it does not describe error behavior or permissions.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the critical overwrite constraint is stated immediately after, making the definition easy to parse and act on.

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 of this complexity, the description plus schema and annotations are sufficient for correct invocation. The agent knows what the tool does, the scope, the required parameters, and the only non-obvious behavior (overwrite gating). No output schema is needed to make the call correctly.

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 schema already documents source and destination including workspace-relative paths and the parent directory requirement. The description compensates for the undocumented overwrite parameter by clarifying that it is required when the destination already exists, giving the agent the missing semantic context.

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 uses a specific verb and resource, 'Copy a regular file', and scopes the operation to the configured workspace root. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like move_file, rename_file, and delete_file because copying preserves the original and is restricted to regular files.

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 states a clear use context: copying regular files inside the workspace. It also provides a key prerequisite/condition: existing destinations require overwrite=true. It stops short of a 5 because it does not explicitly name alternatives such as move_file or rename_file for related operations.

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