finder_copy_file

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

Annotations declare readOnly=false, idempotent=true, and destructive=false, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds genuinely new context: the operation is confined to authorized roots, it refuses to overwrite, and it requires no permissions, which is useful beyond the structured hints.

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?

It is short and front-loads the core action, but the second sentence about 'Rename' is out of place and misleading for a copy tool, so it does not fully earn its place. The version/permissions tag is compact metadata but adds little.

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. The description supplies the scope constraint and overwrite behavior, making it largely complete, though the missing when-to-use guidance leaves a small gap.

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 the schema already documents source, destination, _approvalId, and _idempotencyKey. The description only restates that destination is an absolute path, adding nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 file') plus a scope constraint ('inside authorized roots') and a behavior ('refuse overwrite'), which distinguishes it from siblings like finder_move_file and finder_rename_file. The trailing sentence 'Rename accepts a destination absolute path' is confusing because it references a different operation name, slightly muddying the purpose.

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 constraints but no when-to-use guidance or routing against alternatives such as finder_move_file or finder_rename_file. An agent must infer from the name alone when a copy is preferred over a move or rename.

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