copy_files

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

Annotations flag destructiveHint=true, and the description usefully explains the source of that risk: overwrite=true replaces existing files, while default false preserves them and the source is never removed. That is real added context beyond the annotations, though it says nothing about permissions or whether nested folder contents are copied recursively.

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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: operation, source-preservation guarantee, and the overwrite switch. Front-loaded and free of padding.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the core copy semantics and overwrite behavior are covered. Minor gaps remain around destination preconditions and recursive folder handling, but nothing that would cause a wrong invocation.

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%, so the description carries the burden, and it clarifies only one of three parameters (overwrite's replacement semantics plus the default). 'paths' and 'dest_folder' are left to inference from their names, and nothing says whether dest_folder must already exist or accepts multiple paths.

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 files or folders to a destination folder') and immediately disambiguates from the nearest sibling by noting 'Source files remain in place', which distinguishes it from move_files without the agent needing to open either schema.

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 copy-vs-move distinction gives clear selection context, and the overwrite condition tells the agent when the destructive path is taken. It stops short of explicitly naming move_files or stating when-not to use this tool, so it lacks the explicit alternative routing of a 5.

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