copy_document

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing side effects. It discloses the refusal-to-overwrite behavior, the backup rotation into '.ks4w-backups prev slot', and the reversibility via 'manage_backups restore'. This is strong behavioral disclosure for a mutation-like tool.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The main action and primary use case come first, and the overwrite/backup behavior second. Each sentence adds information essential to calling the tool correctly.

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?

The description covers purpose, alternatives, overwrite semantics, side effects, and reversibility. The presence of an output schema means return-value documentation is already provided elsewhere, so nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke this tool correctly.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It meaningfully explains dest_path (explicit target, contrasted with create_snapshot's generated name) and overwrite (default refusal plus backup rotation). It does not explicitly define file_path as the source, though the tool name and parameter name make that reasonably inferable.

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 states a specific verb ('Copy'), a specific resource ('a document'), and the byte-for-byte semantics of the copy. It explicitly contrasts itself with create_snapshot ('create_snapshot names such a copy for you; this tool takes an explicit dest_path'), making its purpose distinct from its sibling tools.

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?

It gives a concrete use case ('before editing') and explains when to prefer the sibling alternative ('create_snapshot names such a copy for you'). It also clarifies the overwrite condition and the undo path, leaving little ambiguity about when this tool should be selected.

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