workiva_copy_sheet

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It explains the empty target_spreadsheet_id default (copy within source), but does not disclose permissions required, whether the copy is independent/complete, or any side effects (e.g., overwrite behavior, naming of the copied sheet). This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 extremely concise: one sentence plus a compact Args list. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or fluff. The structure is clear and easy to parse.

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?

While the core functionality and parameters are covered, the description lacks important contextual details for a copy operation, such as whether it creates a new sheet, how conflicts are handled, or if data/formulas are copied intact. An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but the absence of annotations and these operational details leaves the description adequate yet incomplete.

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?

The schema has 0% coverage (no per-parameter descriptions), but the description compensates with an explicit Args section that explains each parameter: spreadsheet_id (source), sheet_id (sheet to copy), and target_spreadsheet_id (destination, empty = within source). This adds full meaning beyond the raw schema, including the default behavior.

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 clearly states the tool's function: copying a sheet within the same spreadsheet or to a target spreadsheet. It uses a specific verb ('copy') and resource ('sheet'), and differentiates the two main use cases. Among siblings, there is no other 'copy_sheet' tool, and the description 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 provides clear context on when to use the tool: when copying a sheet within or across spreadsheets. It indirectly excludes alternatives like 'create_sheet' or 'delete_sheet' by focusing on duplication. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, which would be stronger guidance.

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