sigma_duplicate_workbook

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

Annotations already indicate a non-read, non-destructive operation. The description adds value by noting the destination_folder_id defaults to the original folder and that name is required by the API. It does not contradict annotations, and provides useful behavioral context beyond the structured fields.

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 highly concise: a one-sentence summary followed by three line-item parameter explanations. Every sentence adds functional value with no redundancy or filler. It is well-structured for quick parsing.

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 description covers the core purpose and all parameters, and an output schema exists to describe return values. It could mention that the original workbook remains unchanged or that permissions are copied, but given the annotations (non-destructive, open-world) and output schema, the description is sufficiently complete for a cloning operation.

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 fully compensates by explaining all three parameters: workbook_id as the ID to clone, name as the required new name, and destination_folder_id with its default behavior. This adds meaning beyond property names and clarifies usage.

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 states 'Duplicate an existing workbook' which is a specific verb+resource combination. It clearly distinguishes this from creation (sigma_create_workbook) or copying to another member (sigma_copy_workbook_to_member) by focusing on cloning an existing workbook. The parameter explanations further clarify the operation.

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 implies usage by describing the parameters (workbook_id, name, destination_folder_id), but does not explicitly provide when-to-use vs alternatives or exclusions. It lacks guidance such as 'Use this when you want a copy of an existing workbook rather than creating from scratch.'

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