svn_copy

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

The description mentions parent directory creation, which is a key behavior, but does not disclose other important traits like whether existing files are overwritten, error handling, or required permissions. Since no annotations exist, the description carries full burden and falls short.

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 extremely concise, capturing the core purpose in a single phrase. However, it is so brief that it sacrifices clarity on important details.

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 the complexity of an svn copy operation and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on return values, error cases, and the meaning of 'guarded'. More context is needed for effective tool selection.

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 only 33% (only cwd has a description). The description adds no information about src or dest parameters, leaving their semantics ambiguous. It does not compensate for the low coverage.

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 it's an 'svn copy' operation on the working copy with parent directory creation. The verb and resource are clear (copy within working copy), but it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like svn_move or svn_export, though the mention of 'working-copy' helps narrow scope.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as svn_move or svn_add. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions.

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