copy_file

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

Beyond the annotations (non-readonly, non-destructive, non-idempotent), the description discloses encryption-at-rest behavior ('copied encrypted, never decrypted'), overwrite safety ('nothing is overwritten'), logging, and undo semantics ('undo puts the copy in the trash while it's unchanged'). This is materially richer than the structured hints alone.

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?

Roughly four sentences, all front-loaded with the constraint and the routing hint before the return-value note. Every clause carries operational information with no filler.

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, yet the description still briefly notes the return shape (both paths and the change id) at no real cost. Combined with the preconditions, alternative routing, and undo behavior, nothing an agent needs to invoke this correctly is missing.

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, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema: the vault must be one that may be changed, the new path's parent folder must exist, and nothing is overwritten. It lightly reinforces the schema's 'must be free' constraint on 'to' rather than adding new syntax, keeping it just short of 5.

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 and resource (copy one file to a new path in the same vault) and immediately bounds the scope (files only, not folders). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling 'move' tool by naming the rename use case, so an agent can route without opening either schema.

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?

Gives explicit conditions and exclusions: same vault, vault must be changeable, files not folders, target path must be free and its parent folder must exist, and 'Use move to rename instead' as a named alternative. The when/when-not guidance is essentially complete.

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