ras_project_copy

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It properly explains scope (all project files), the safety guarantee ('original model is never modified'), and the default exclusion of results HDFs/logs unless include_results=true. This is substantial behavioral context, though it doesn't cover edge cases like overwrite behavior or error handling.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every clause provides useful detail. There is no fluff or repetition of schema content.

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 the tool's moderate complexity, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what gets copied, the exclusion default, and the intended use-case timing. It could mention what happens on overwrite or return behavior, but those are minor gaps for a copy operation.

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 of 3 applies. The description adds some context about file types and relative references, but it does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides for each parameter. For example, include_results behavior is already documented in the schema.

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 opens with a clear action verb and specific resource: 'Copy a whole HEC-RAS project folder to a new folder,' listing the exact file types included. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like ras_run or ras_plot, which perform different operations.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use it BEFORE editing or running so the original model is never modified.' It provides clear context for use but does not name specific alternatives or explicitly state when not to use it, though the sibling list implicitly covers alternatives.

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