fs_copy_directory

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It adds 'overwrite controls existing target cleanup,' which hints at how the overwrite parameter affects the operation, but it does not fully explain whether overwrite deletes the entire target directory, only overwrites files, or any other side effects. The statement is ambiguous but provides some value.

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, concise sentence that conveys the core functionality and one key behavioral nuance. Every word earns its place; there is no filler or redundancy.

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 directory copy operation with three parameters, the description is minimal. It does not mention required permissions, error conditions, handling of symlinks/hidden files, or what the output schema contains. The output schema exists but is not shown; still, the description lacks enough context for the agent to anticipate edge cases or failure modes. It is adequate but has clear gaps.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'overwrite' parameter as controlling existing target cleanup, but it leaves 'source_dir' and 'copy_dest_dir' undefined. These are relatively self-explanatory names, but the description does not fully mitigate the lack of schema documentation, especially for the overwrite semantics.

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's action ('Copy full directory tree') with a specific verb and resource. The phrase 'full directory tree' indicates recursive copying, distinguishing it from sibling tools like fs_copy_file, which handles single files.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as fs_copy_file or fs_move_directory. No explicit use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer applicability solely from the tool name.

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