webdav_copy_remote_item

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It mentions copying to a 'new location' but doesn't disclose critical behaviors like whether it preserves metadata, handles recursive directory copying, requires specific permissions, has size limitations, or what happens on failure. The 'overwrite' parameter hints at conflict behavior, but this isn't explained in the description.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a basic operation and front-loads the core action ('Copy a file or directory').

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 file operation tool with 3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the operation's scope (single files only? recursive directories?), error conditions, authentication requirements, or return values. The context signals indicate significant gaps that the description doesn't address.

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 adds no parameter information. It doesn't explain what 'fromPath' and 'toPath' represent (relative/absolute paths, URL formats), what 'overwrite' does exactly, or any path validation rules. The three parameters remain semantically undocumented beyond their 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?

The description clearly states the action ('Copy') and resource ('a file or directory') with the destination context ('to a new location on a remote WebDAV server'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'move' by specifying 'copy', but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other file operations beyond the verb choice.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to choose copy over move (webdav_move_remote_item), or how it relates to creation tools (webdav_create_remote_file/directory). The description only states what it does, not when it's appropriate.

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