sigma_duplicate_report

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

Annotations already indicate non-read-only behavior (readOnlyHint=false). The description adds that this is a cloning operation and clarifies that name and destination_folder_id are required by the API, which provides marginal context. However, it does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether the original report is unchanged), permissions needed, or any other behavioral nuances, leaving some ambiguity for a mutating operation.

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 compact and front-loaded with the primary action, followed by a parameter list. The parameter list is useful given the schema's lack of descriptions, but the repeated 'required by the API' phrase is redundant because the schema already marks all three as required. Slightly trimmed, it would be ideal.

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 duplication tool, the description covers the core action and all parameters. The presence of an output schema means return values are documented elsewhere. However, it lacks any usage context, relationship to sibling tools, or notes on behavior like whether the source is preserved. This makes it minimally complete but not comprehensive.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description explains each parameter's role: report_id is the source report to clone, name is the new report's name, and destination_folder_id is the target folder. This adds meaning beyond the bare parameter titles and clarifies the source/destination relationships, which is essential for correct invocation.

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: 'Duplicate a report.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like sigma_create_report (creating a new report) and sigma_duplicate_workbook (duplicating a different resource). The purpose is unambiguous.

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 description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as sigma_create_report or sigma_duplicate_workbook. It simply states the operation without any contextual conditions or exclusions. There is no mention of prerequisites, use cases, or alternative tools.

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