copy_file

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It simply restates the copy semantics without addressing side effects like existing destination handling when overwrite is false, error conditions, whether parent directories are created, or what the operation returns. This is insufficient for an agent to predict failure modes.

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 a single sentence with no filler: 'Copy file from source to destination.' It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, and every word contributes to meaning. Appropriate for a simple operation.

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 with no output schema and no annotations, the description is too sparse to be complete. It omits return value, behavior when destination exists (especially given the overwrite parameter default), directory creation, and any permissions or side effects. While the operation is simple, an agent still needs these details to invoke it confidently.

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 is 3 even though the tool description adds no parameter-level detail. Each parameter already has a brief description in the schema (source path, destination path, overwrite flag with default), but the tool description itself does not enrich the semantics beyond that.

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 the specific verb 'copy' with the resource 'file' and names the source and destination, leaving no ambiguity about the operation. It is distinct from sibling tools like write_file, rename, and delete_file because 'copy' semantically implies duplicating content rather than creating, moving, or removing it.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use copy_file versus alternatives. It does not mention when copy is preferred over rename or write_file, nor does it state any prerequisites or typical use cases. An agent is left to infer the tool's niche solely from its name.

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