sheets_duplicate_sheet

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the full transparency burden. It only states the action without disclosing whether the original sheet is modified, what permissions are required, or how new_title and insert_index affect the result. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 a single sentence that is front-loaded with the action and scope, containing no filler, redundant phrases, or unnecessary details. It is perfectly concise.

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?

Even with an output schema present, the lack of annotations and minimal description leave gaps around prerequisites, edge cases (e.g., duplicate titles), and behavioral expectations. For a tool with four parameters, this is incomplete and could lead to misuse.

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%, and the description does not explain any of the four parameters (spreadsheet_id, sheet_id, new_title, insert_index). The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds no semantic value and fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 uses the specific verb 'Duplicate' with the resource 'sheet/tab' and the scope 'within the same spreadsheet,' making the tool's function unambiguous. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like sheets_add_sheet or drive_copy_file.

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 phrase 'within the same spreadsheet' gives clear context that this tool is for copying within the same file, not across spreadsheets. However, it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use the tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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