copy_files

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and does not meet it. It never states whether existing files at the destination are overwritten, whether directory copies are recursive, whether permissions/timestamps are preserved, or what the tool returns on success or partial failure — all critical for a mutation tool with no safety hints.

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?

A single short sentence with the verb front-loaded and zero filler. It is efficient, though its brevity is also the source of the missing behavioral detail rather than a sign of completeness.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should at minimum cover overwrite semantics and success/failure behavior. It covers neither, leaving the agent to guess at the riskiest aspects of invoking it.

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% and both parameters are documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of "file or directory" for the source and "new location" for the destination only loosely echoes the schema's "Source file or folder path" and "Destination directory path" without adding format, path-style, or edge-case detail.

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 names a specific verb ("Copy") and resource ("a file or directory") plus the destination scope ("a new location on the server"), so an agent can distinguish it from siblings like move_files or rename. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with those siblings, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 on when to use this instead of move_files, rename, or compress_files, and no stated preconditions. Nothing tells the agent whether the source must exist, whether the account must be logged in, or when a different transfer tool is preferred.

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