copy_file

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose key behavioral traits such as overwrite behavior, source existence checks, authentication requirements, or whether the operation is atomic. The only behavioral claim is a success message return.

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 and uses a standard docstring format with an Args section. It conveys the essential information without unnecessary verbosity, though it could be slightly more compact.

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 tool performs a file copy operation across backends, the description lacks details on overwrite policy, error handling, and backend-specific behaviors. The output schema exists but the description only mentions 'Success message,' which is minimal.

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?

The description lists parameters with brief explanations, adding 'uses default if not specified' for backend parameters—information not present in the schema. However, coverage is low (0%), and most descriptors are redundant with the schema titles.

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 'Copy a file between backends or within the same backend,' which specifies the action (copy), resource (file), and scope (backends). This distinguishes it from siblings like rename_file, which performs a different operation.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies copying but does not mention when not to use it or compare with rename_file or other file operations.

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