cascade_remote_copy

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and falls well short. It does not say whether an existing destination file is overwritten, whether partial transfers are resumable, what permissions are needed on either side, or how errors/failures are surfaced — all critical for a mutation/transfer tool.

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?

Two short sentences with the core action front-loaded; the compression note is brief and relevant. Slightly terse for a transfer tool, but nothing is wasted.

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?

A 5-parameter file-transfer tool with no annotations and no output schema needs more than this. Overwrite behavior, transfer durability, prerequisites (READY handle), and error semantics are all absent, leaving the agent unable to predict the tool's effects.

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 80%, so the schema already documents handle, direction, and the path parameters; baseline is 3. The description adds only that zstd compression is supported, which lightly touches the otherwise-undescribed `compression` param but never clarifies the 'auto' mode or the zstd/none trade-off.

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 (stream transfer) and resource (a regular file) with clear scope (local machine to opened remote target). It distinguishes itself from read/write/edit/ls/grep siblings by being the bulk-transfer tool, though the 'regular file' qualifier (excluding directories) is the only real disambiguation and no sibling is named.

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 phrase 'opened remote target' implies a prerequisite that the handle must already be READY, but no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternatives are stated. An agent must infer that this is for copying rather than reading/editing content.

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