copy

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the trailing-slash destination rule, but says nothing about what happens when the destination already exists and `overwrite` is false (error vs. auto-rename), whether metadata is preserved, or required permissions. For an unannotated mutation tool, that is a significant gap.

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?

Two short sentences, purpose first, the non-obvious path convention second. No filler, nothing repeated from structured fields.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and a mutation that can overwrite data, the description should state collision/overwrite behavior and whether output is a new path. It covers paths but leaves the riskiest behavior undefined.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds genuine meaning for `to` beyond the schema's "folder ending with '/'": it spells out that a trailing slash means "into this folder, same name," which resolves the ambiguity of how the copy is named. `from` and `overwrite` add nothing beyond 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Copy a file or folder") and covers both files and folders explicitly. It does not name or contrast with the sibling `move`, which has near-identical destination semantics, so an agent must infer the distinction from the tool name alone.

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 explicit when-to-use, when-not, or alternative routing, despite `move` and `upload_file` being plausible alternatives. The intent is implied by the self-evident name, but nothing states that source is preserved or when to prefer this over `move`.

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