copy_document

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so thoroughly: refusing an existing dest_path unless overwrite=True, rotating the previous destination into the .ks4w-backups prev slot, and making the overwrite undoable via manage_backups restore. This goes well beyond the schema and discloses important side effects.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the core action and use case, the overwrite and backup semantics, and the scope boundary. The most important information is front-loaded, and there is no redundant restatement of schema fields.

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 3-parameter tool with no annotations and no schema descriptions, the description is complete: it states what it does, when to use it, what overwrite does to the destination, and where alternative behavior lives. The output schema covers return-shape concerns, so the description does not need to repeat them.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful semantics for dest_path (explicit target, existing-path refusal) and overwrite (default refusal, backup rotation). file_path is left to inference as the source document path, which is mostly recoverable from context but not explicitly named.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Copy a document byte-for-byte') and immediately frames the use case: creating a new DTG-stamped filename before editing. It also distinguishes the tool from manage_backups' snapshot naming and from split/merge/multi-document functionality, making sibling differentiation clear.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use context ('before editing') and contrasts this tool with manage_backups action='snapshot' by noting that this tool takes an explicit dest_path. It also states that split/merge and multi-document work belong in the assembly pack, routing the agent away from this tool for those cases.

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