copy

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: automatic file/directory detection and recursive copy for directories. However, it omits overwrite behavior and error handling, which leaves some ambiguity, but the disclosed behaviors are meaningful and helpful.

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 front-loaded with a recommendation tag and conveys its role in three sentences followed by keywords. The bilingual translation adds redundancy but is not excessive. It remains concise and scannable, earning a 4.

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 2-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, and key behaviors. It clearly positions itself as the main copy tool among siblings, making it complete enough for correct selection and invocation.

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 detailed descriptions and examples for both 'source' and 'destination'. The tool description does not add parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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's function: 'COPY files or directories to new location.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like copy_file and copy_directory by declaring 'MAIN copy tool - use for ALL copy operations' and 'Automatically detects file/directory type and handles appropriately.' This makes its purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly says 'use for ALL copy operations' and provides concrete use cases in the schema description (duplicate files, create backups, copy entire directories, clone project structures). This gives explicit when-to-use guidance and implies alternatives are not needed.

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