Copy host file

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true). The description adds useful prerequisite context ('Source must be readable, destination must be writable'), but it does not explain overwrite behavior or what happens when the destination already exists and overwrite is false. This is a moderate gap given the overwrite parameter exists.

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 a single focused sentence, front-loaded with the core action. Every part earns its place, and there is no unnecessary detail.

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 three-parameter copy tool, the description is mostly adequate, especially with an output schema present. However, it leaves the overwrite behavior implied rather than stated, which is important for an agent predicting side effects. The permission prerequisites are helpful but incomplete coverage of the tool's behavior.

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, but it only names source and destination without adding path format details or any semantics for the overwrite parameter. The overwrite behavior—whether existing files are replaced or cause an error—is not explained anywhere in the description.

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 states a specific action and resource: 'Copy a file or directory.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like file_move, file_delete, and file_restore. No ambiguity about what the tool does.

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: use this when a copy of a file or directory is needed. It does not explicitly contrast with file_move or other file operations, so it misses the full 'when not to use' guidance, but the core usage is clear enough.

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