files_copy

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses nothing beyond the verb. It does not state whether copying is a deep recursive copy, what happens on name collision, required permissions, or side effects on the original. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage this is a serious gap.

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?

At a single three-word phrase, the problem is under-specification rather than verbosity. There is nothing wasted, but also nothing that earns its place beyond the tool name, so it cannot score as well-structured guidance.

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?

With 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far too thin to guide correct invocation. The agent has no description-level signal about overwrite semantics, destination defaults, or return 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 100%, with all four parameters (name, parentId, resourceId, isOverwrite) documented in the schema itself. Per the rubric, a high-coverage schema sets the baseline at 3, and the description adds no extra parameter meaning.

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 '파일/폴더 복사' (copy file/folder) gives a specific verb (복사/copy) and resource (파일/폴더), which is slightly more than the bare tool name files_copy. However, it provides no scope, no differentiation from adjacent siblings like files_move, files_rename, or files_upload, so it sits at the minimum-viable level.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as files_move or files_upload. No prerequisites, no exclusions, no context — the agent must infer all routing decisions from the tool name alone.

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