Copy files or directories

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

With only openWorldHint in annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects. It explicitly states 'Mutates NAS state but leaves the sources untouched', requires the destination to exist, and notes copies consume additional capacity. This goes well beyond what the annotations provide.

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 compact and front-loaded, with each sentence serving a distinct purpose: operation, use case, return shape, side effects, and alternative selection. No redundancy or filler.

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 only two clearly documented parameters, existing output schema, and modest annotations, the description is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. It covers behavior, prerequisites, return shape, capacity impact, and how to choose between this and zspace_move.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful extra semantics by clarifying that the destination must already exist and may need to be created with zspace_mkdir, which is not obvious from the schema alone.

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 a specific verb ('Copy'), a resource ('files/directories on the NAS'), and a target ('destination folder'). It also distinguishes itself from zspace_move explicitly by noting the originals are left untouched.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: duplicating media or creating backups. It names the alternative (zspace_move) and gives the selection rule: choose copy when the original must remain, move when it should not. Also directs users to create the destination with zspace_mkdir and check capacity with zspace_pool_info for large trees.

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