Workbooks Duplicate Report

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, open-world write operation. The description adds only that name and destination_folder_id are "required by the API," and says nothing about what content is carried into the clone (data sources, schedules, permissions) or any auth/scope requirements, so it barely improves on the structured hints.

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 action is front-loaded in a single sentence, followed by a compact parameter list with no filler. Structure is clean and appropriately sized, though it is terse to the point of omitting useful context.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and all three params are covered. Still missing is the scope of the duplication (what travels with the report, whether the original is affected) and any differentiation from workbooks_duplicate_workbook, leaving a mutation tool adequately but thinly specified.

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 carry the meaning, and it does give a one-line gloss for each of the three params (report to clone, name for the clone, destination folder). However, the glosses largely restate the parameter names and add no format or constraint detail (e.g., ID format, folder ID expectations).

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?

"Duplicate a report" gives a specific verb and resource, so an agent can tell it apart from most siblings. It does not, however, contrast itself with the closely related workbooks_duplicate_workbook sibling, leaving the report-vs-workbook distinction to inference from the name.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives. It never mentions workbooks_duplicate_workbook or explains when a caller should clone a report rather than a workbook or use workbooks_create_report, so tool selection relies entirely on the name.

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