copy_path

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent and closed-world, and 'Never overwrites' is consistent with that while adding genuine information. It stops short of saying what actually happens when the destination exists (error vs. silent no-op) or whether intermediate directories are created.

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, zero filler, with the operation stated before the safety constraint. Nothing here could be trimmed without losing content.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. Still, for a filesystem mutation with 0% parameter documentation, the description should say what happens on destination collision and how paths are resolved.

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%, with only bare titles 'Source' and 'Destination' to work from. The description does not clarify whether these are workspace-relative or absolute paths, whether source may be a directory tree, or how the never-overwrite rule constrains destination.

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 a file or directory) plus a scope constraint (inside the workspace), which is enough to distinguish it from create_file and edit_file. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling move_path, which is the closest functional neighbour.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The description never mentions move_path as the alternative for relocating a path, and gives no hint about when a copy is preferable to creating the target fresh.

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