copy_table

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

The description discloses key behavior (deep copy, insertion order) but does not elaborate on what exactly is copied (formatting, content, structure) or potential side effects. With no annotations, the burden is higher, and more detail would be beneficial.

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?

Extremely concise: one sentence for the action, followed by concise Args and Returns. No redundant words, and the main purpose is front-loaded.

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's simplicity (one parameter, simple action, output schema exists), the description covers the essentials. It explains input and output. Could be slightly improved by noting that the table must exist in the document.

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?

Only one parameter (table_idx) with 0% schema description coverage. The description adds '0-based' meaning, which compensates for the lack of schema description. It clearly explains the parameter's purpose.

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 the verb (deep-copy) and resource (table), and specifies the insertion location (immediately after the original). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like copy_table_style or duplicate_table_row.

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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions. Siblings like duplicate_table_row or add_table provide similar functionality but without differentiation.

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