copy_note

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 adds the key fact that 'The original note is preserved,' which is a non-obvious behavior. However, it does not mention what happens if a file exists at the destination and overwrite is false, or whether intermediate directories are created, leaving some behavioral 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 two short, direct sentences that efficiently convey the core action and a critical side effect. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or 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?

For a simple copy operation with a well-defined schema, the description is adequately complete: it states the operation and that the original is preserved. The absence of an output schema is acceptable given the tool's simplicity, and the overwrite behavior is documented in the schema. Minor gaps like error handling on conflict are not critical.

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 input schema covers all three parameters with clear descriptions (sourcePath, destinationPath, overwrite), achieving 100% schema_description_coverage. The description provides no additional parameter semantics, so it does not add value 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?

The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Copy a note to a new location in the vault.' It specifies the verb (copy), the resource (note), and the outcome (new location), and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like delete_note (which removes) and create_note (which creates new notes).

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_note or update_note. It does not mention scenarios where copying is preferred or any exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name and purpose.

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