fs_copy_file

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

With no annotations, the description must provide behavioral details. It mentions 'metadata' and 'overwrite toggle' but fails to describe error handling (e.g., behavior when overwrite is false and destination exists), side effects, or permissions required. Insufficient for an agent to understand full behavior.

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?

Single sentence, very concise. However, the brevity sacrifices informative content. Structure is minimal but not cluttered.

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?

No output schema, no annotations, and three parameters with no schema descriptions. The description does not specify return values, error conditions, or whether the operation is atomic. Incomplete for the tool's complexity level.

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 should explain parameters. 'overwrite toggle' hints at the boolean parameter but does not clarify its effect. No description for source_file_path and dest_file_path (e.g., absolute vs relative paths, file vs directory paths). Minimal value beyond the parameter names.

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?

Clearly states the tool copies a file and mentions metadata preservation and overwrite toggle. Distinguishes from sibling tools like fs_copy_directory (copies directories) and fs_move_file (moves). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from fs_file_replace or other file operations.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like fs_move_file or fs_copy_directory. Lacks context for appropriate use cases or prerequisites (e.g., whether the destination path must exist).

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