copy_sheet

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool copies a sheet but lacks details on permissions required, whether the operation is idempotent, error conditions (e.g., invalid IDs), or what happens to existing data. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior beyond the basic action.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without redundancy. It is front-loaded with the core action and scope, making it easy to parse quickly, with no wasted words or unnecessary elaboration.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (a mutation operation with no annotations and no output schema), the description is insufficient. It does not cover behavioral aspects like error handling, return values, or side effects, which are critical for an agent to invoke the tool correctly in a spreadsheet management context.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting all four parameters. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond implying copying within or across spreadsheets, which is already inferred from parameter names. Thus, it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without enhancing parameter understanding.

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 action ('copy a sheet') and the target resources ('to another spreadsheet or within the same spreadsheet'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'create_sheet' or 'update_sheet_properties', which could involve similar sheet operations, leaving room for minor confusion.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, such as needing access to source and destination spreadsheets, or compare it to sibling tools like 'create_sheet' for new sheets or 'update_sheet_properties' for modifications, leaving the agent without context for selection.

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