copy

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that copying is performed by reading and re-uploading, which implies network usage and potential slowness, but it does not discuss behavior on existing destinations, permissions, or error cases. The mechanism is useful but limited.

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 concise and well-structured: a clear purpose statement followed by a compact argument list. Every sentence contributes value, and the key information is front-loaded.

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 tool, the description covers the mechanism and parameters. However, it omits error handling and overwrite semantics, though an output schema exists. With no annotations, the description is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 must compensate. It clearly defines both 'source' and 'destination' as relative paths, giving meaning to the parameters beyond their names. This is sufficient for a simple two-parameter tool.

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 action 'Copy a file' and identifies the resource. It also explains the mechanism (reading and re-uploading) because the WD API lacks server-side copy, which distinguishes it from a conceptual move or direct server-side copy.

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 implies the tool is used for copying a file but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like 'move' or when not to use it. It provides rationale for the implementation but lacks direct comparison to sibling tools or usage exclusions.

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