workiva_copy_document_section

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It clarifies the empty target_document_id behavior, but doesn't disclose whether the copy is deep, whether the source is modified, permission requirements, or side effects. 'Copy' implies non-destructive but is not explicit.

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 plus an args list, with zero fluff. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and structured logically.

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 essential purpose and parameters, and an output schema exists, so not explaining return values is acceptable. However, it lacks detail on edge cases like copying nested sections, error conditions, or prerequisites, making it minimally complete for the tool's complexity.

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%, but the Args block provides clear semantics for each parameter, including the default behavior of target_document_id. This compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions, though some additional nuance (e.g., required vs optional) is left to the schema.

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 'Copy a document section within or to another document' with a specific verb, resource, and scope. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_document_section, delete_document_section, and get_document_section.

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 through 'within or to another document' but provides no explicit when-to-use context or alternatives. There is no mention of when to prefer this over create_document_section or bulk_edit_document_sections.

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