copy_file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that metadata is preserved and that parent directories of the destination are created automatically, but it omits the critical question of overwrite behavior when the destination already exists, plus permissions and failure modes.

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?

Front-loaded purpose sentence followed by a compact Args block; every line earns its place. Slightly redundant to restate parameter names that already appear in the schema, but the added semantics justify it.

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 file-creating operation with no annotations and no output schema, key agent-facing details are missing: overwrite/fail-if-exists behavior, what the tool returns (destination path? new file info?), and error conditions. The scope and side-effect notes partially compensate.

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 0% (only titles 'Source'/'Destination'), so the description must compensate and largely does: source is an existing path relative to the workspace root, and destination auto-creates its parent directories. Only destination's own path semantics (relative? absolute? overwrite?) remain underspecified.

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') plus scope ('within the workspace') and a behavioral detail (metadata preserved). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from close siblings like move_file or write_file, so it stops short of a 5.

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 'within the workspace' scope implicitly constrains when this tool applies, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or named alternative (e.g. use move_file to relocate, write_file to create new content). Usage is implied rather than stated.

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