cp

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

Annotations include destructiveHint: true. The description adds that the tool is 'destructive to destination: creates new copies on the filesystem,' explains overwrite protection enabled by default, and mentions return format. No contradiction with annotations.

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 well-structured but slightly verbose. It front-loads the main action and key features, then provides usage guidance. Could be more concise by combining some sentences, but overall readable.

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 6 parameters, no output schema, and sibling tools, the description covers all essential aspects: duplication, dry-run, overwrite protection, return JSON, and alternatives. It does not explain metadata handling, but that is acceptable for a general 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with all parameters described. The description adds value beyond schema by explaining that overwrite protection is enabled by default and that dry_run is for preview. However, the schema descriptions are already fairly clear, so extra context is useful but not critical.

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 explicitly states 'Copy files and directories' and distinguishes from siblings 'mv' and 'install'. It also covers key features like dry-run and overwrite protection, making the purpose very clear.

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 explicit guidance: 'Use to duplicate files or directories. Not for moving files — use 'mv'... Not for setting permissions — use 'install'.' It also mentions safe preview via dry-run and overwrite protection, offering clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use context.

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