fm_copy

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It only says 'Copy files' and gives a vague 'confirm: Required' note, without disclosing overwrite behavior, whether confirmation is user-facing or API-level, or whether the operation can be destructive. The claim that confirm is required also conflicts with the schema, where confirm is optional with a default of false.

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 very short and front-loaded with the core purpose, which is good. However, the argument section is sparse and includes an inaccurate 'Required' label for confirm, so conciseness is achieved at the cost of correctness and usefulness.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but this is still inadequate for a file-mutation tool. Missing context includes path semantics, whether existing files are overwritten, what confirmation gates the operation, and how this relates to fm_move. An agent cannot safely invoke this tool based on the current description alone.

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 must compensate. It adds only a minimal hint that payload is a 'Source/destination body', but does not explain the expected structure, required fields within the payload, or what confirm actually does. The false 'Required' label for confirm actively misleads the agent.

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 and resource: 'Copy files.' This is clear and unambiguous, and it is naturally distinguished from sibling operations like fm_move, fm_remove, and fm_mkdir. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from fm_move or describe scope, so it stops short of a top score.

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 guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as fm_move, backups_create, or fm_trash. The description does not mention prerequisites, source/destination conventions, or any context that would help an agent decide between copy and move operations.

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