copy_file

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

The description discloses that overwriting is optional, which implies the destination may be replaced while the source remains intact. This adds behavioral context beyond the destructiveHint annotation, though it does not mention permission requirements or failure outcomes.

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 short and front-loaded, with the key behavior stated immediately. It contains minor bilingual redundancy but no wasted words.

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 simple file-copy operation with full parameter schema coverage and relevant annotations, the description is adequate. It could be more complete by mentioning behavior when overwrite is false and the destination exists, but the core invocation needs are covered.

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%, and each parameter already has a clear description. The tool description only reinforces the overwrite option and adds little beyond the structured schema, so baseline 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 states the specific action (copy), the resource (file), and the optional overwrite behavior. It is clear but does not explicitly contrast with sibling file tools, though the copy action is distinctive enough on its own.

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 given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as write_text_file, read_text_file, or delete_file. There are no stated conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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