Copy

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=false and readOnlyHint=false, consistent with a copy operation (not destructive, not read-only). However, the description does not disclose behavior like overwriting behavior, permission requirements, or symlink handling, which are important beyond 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 concise but repeats parameter definitions already in the schema. Could be more efficient by focusing on behavioral context rather than listing parameters.

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 no output schema and a moderately complex tool (file system mutation), the description omits important details like overwrite behavior, permissions, and symlink handling. It is not fully complete.

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 100%, so parameters are already well documented. The description adds minimal value beyond restating the schema; a 3 is appropriate as baseline.

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 tool copies a file or directory, with specific verb 'copies' and resource 'file or directory'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like fc_move (move vs copy) and fc_delete_file (delete vs copy), though not explicitly.

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?

No guidance on when to use copy versus alternatives like fc_move, fc_archive, or fc_safe_delete. Does not mention that copy leaves the original intact, which is the key differentiator.

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