Copy a file or directory from a source path to a destination, with options to overwrite existing targets and proceed when a full undo snapshot is not possible.
Copy a file or directory.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| source | Yes | ||
| overwrite | No | ||
| destination | Yes | ||
| allowPartialUndo | No | Proceed even if the change is too large to snapshot completely (undo would be partial) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond the name: it doesn't say whether directory copies are recursive, whether existing destinations are overwritten, or what happens on partial failure (the allowPartialUndo param hints at snapshot limits). With annotations doing the disclosure work, this minimal description is weak but not contradictory.
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?
A single short sentence with zero waste and the verb front-loaded, which is structurally fine. But the brevity comes at the cost of substance rather than being earned conciseness.
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 destructive mutation tool with two undocumented required parameters (source, destination) and no output schema, the definition is far too thin. Annotations cover the safety signal, but the description leaves overwrite semantics, recursive directory behavior, and the partial-undo limitation entirely unexplained.
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 only 25%: source, destination, and overwrite are undocumented in the schema, and the one-sentence description adds no meaning for any of the four parameters. It fails to compensate for the coverage gap, e.g. it never mentions that copying can overwrite an existing destination.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Copy a file or directory'), so the operation is unambiguous. However, it offers no differentiation from the closely related sibling move_path or delete_path, which an agent selecting among filesystem tools would benefit from.
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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance is provided. The purpose implies copying rather than moving or deleting, but nothing routes the agent between copy_path, move_path, and delete_path.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.