Copy Project File

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

With only openWorldHint=true in annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden — and it delivers: it discloses that the copy is staged in the working copy and requires openl_save_project to commit, that intermediate folders are auto-created, and that a conflict yields HTTP 409. This is exactly the side-effect and failure-mode context an agent needs beyond the bare annotation.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: core behavior, folder auto-creation, the no-overwrite failure mode, staging/commit requirement, branch pinning, and use cases. Dense but well front-loaded — the most decision-critical facts (no overwrite, 409, staged copy) appear in the first three sentences.

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 5-parameter tool with no output schema and a large sibling family, the description covers behavior, failure modes, side effects, and the follow-up workflow (commit with openl_save_project) — nearly everything required to invoke it correctly. The only gap is that the return value/response shape is never mentioned, which matters slightly more because no output schema exists.

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%, so the schema already documents all five parameters, including path formats and branch behavior; the baseline 3 applies. The description adds minor reinforcement ('Use branch to pin the project's branch') but no new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already states.

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 first sentence names a specific verb and resource — 'Copy a file within a project to a new project-relative path' — and the endpoint mapping POST /projects/{projectId}/file-copy confirms the operation. The closing use-case guidance ('scaffold a new module from an existing one or clone a test set') further distinguishes it from sibling file operations like move, write, or delete.

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 gives clear when-to-use context ('Use this to scaffold a new module from an existing one or clone a test set') and an explicit exclusion: 'There is NO overwrite option — if destinationPath already exists the call fails with HTTP 409; choose a different destination or delete the existing file first.' It stops short of naming sibling alternatives (e.g., openl_move_project_file or openl_write_project_file) by name, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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