copy_queries

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does add meaningful context by mentioning that dependent queries are copied along, which is a non-obvious behavior. However, it does not disclose whether existing queries are overwritten, whether dry_run is supported, whether the source is modified, or what happens on conflicts.

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 one sentence with no filler, front-loads the action, and adds the key dependency behavior efficiently. It is appropriately concise for a top-line description, though the brevity contributes to the lack of parameter and edge-case guidance.

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?

The context is incomplete for a tool with 6 parameters, 3 required, no annotations, and no output schema. The description does not explain what dry_run does, what overwrite implies, how dependency traversal behaves, or what the tool returns. An agent would need additional information beyond this description to invoke it confidently in non-trivial cases.

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 gives some meaning to from_source and to_source via 'between workbooks / projects / folders' and to include_dependencies via 'bringing the queries they depend on along.' But the required 'names' parameter and the important 'dry_run' and 'overwrite' parameters receive no semantic explanation.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Copy queries between workbooks / projects / folders,' which clearly states the core operation. It also adds a distinguishing behavior, 'bringing the queries they depend on along,' which helps differentiate it from copy-like or query-import tools. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, so it falls just short of a 5.

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 phrasing implies when to use the tool: when copying queries between workbooks, projects, or folders, especially when dependencies matter. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which sibling tool to choose instead, such as export_queries or import_queries, so the agent must infer the appropriate context.

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