Manage local files and folders

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds useful behavioral guidance: 'Use exact resolved targets and verify consequential operations afterward.' This goes beyond the annotations by advising post-operation verification and caution with path resolution, though it does not detail what may be destroyed or under what conditions.

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 extremely concise: two sentences, no filler. It front-loads the core actions in the first sentence and adds a practical caution in the second. Every word earns its place.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (5 parameters, destructive operation, no output schema), the description covers the purpose and a verification warning but leaves out important parameter semantics (e.g., overwrite behavior, recursive handling, destination requirement). The annotations cover the destructive nature, allowing a slightly higher score, but the incomplete parameter context still prevents a higher rating.

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%, and the description does not explain the parameters other than implying the 'action' enum via the verbs. It doesn't clarify the meaning or usage of 'overwrite', 'recursive', 'source', or 'destination'. For a tool with 5 parameters (2 required), this is a significant gap.

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 begins with specific verbs and a resource: 'Copy, move, delete, or create local files and folders.' This clearly enumerates the tool's actions and distinguishes it from sibling tools like read_file or list_directory, which handle reading/listing.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool (any operation that copies, moves, deletes, or creates local files/folders), but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives such as write_file for editing. The caution to 'Use exact resolved targets' implies careful use, but no exclusion or alternative is stated.

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