copy_directory

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

With no annotations, the description explains failure behavior on existing destinations and the dry_run option. However, it lacks details on merging semantics, permissions, or potential side effects, leaving some ambiguity.

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 concise, with a front-loaded purpose statement and clear bullet-pointed arguments. Every sentence adds value without repetition.

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 presence of an output schema (implied), the description adequately covers core behavior and arguments. It could mention error handling more explicitly, but overall is sufficient for a directory copy tool.

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?

The description explains each parameter in the Args block, adding meaning beyond the empty schema descriptions. However, source and destination descriptions are minimal ('existing source directory path').

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 clearly states it copies a directory tree, which is a specific verb (copy) and resource (directory tree). It is distinct from sibling tools like copy_file and move_file.

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 notes that existing destinations fail unless overwrite is true, providing a clear condition for use. It does not explicitly compare with siblings but implies context through the action and arguments.

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