Copy Project File

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

The description discloses key behaviors beyond annotations: no overwrite option (HTTP 409), automatic intermediate folder creation, staging in working copy requiring commit, and branch pinning behavior. Given the openWorldHint annotation, this provides sufficient transparency.

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 concise (4 sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds valuable information: purpose, REST mapping, auto-creation, no-overwrite, staging, branch usage, and use cases. No fluff.

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?

Given no output schema, the description does not explain the success response or failure modes beyond the 409. It also omits what happens if sourcePath does not exist or if permissions are insufficient. While adequate for many use cases, it could be more complete for a mutation tool with openWorldHint.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning for destinationPath (auto-create, no overwrite) and branch (pinning to project's branch), which goes beyond the schema descriptions. Response_format is not elaborated but the enum covers it.

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 tool copies a file within a project to a new project-relative path, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by providing use cases ('scaffold a new module from an existing one or clone a test set') and implicitly contrasts with move/write via the 'copy' action.

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?

The description explains when to use the tool (scaffolding/cloning) and includes critical constraints (no overwrite, need to commit, branch pinning). It does not explicitly compare to sibling tools like move or write, but the usage context is clear enough for an AI agent.

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