duplicate_sheet

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return format (JSON with new sheet's ID, title, and index) and the 'within the same spreadsheet' scope, but it does not mention that the original sheet remains unchanged, whether formatting or formulas are copied, or any permission requirements. This is a moderate level of transparency.

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 purpose statement, an Args list, and a Returns line. There is no fluff, and the structure is clear and front-loaded. Every sentence contributes value.

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?

For a tool with 4 parameters and an output schema, the description covers purpose, all arguments, and return values. It lacks usage guidance and behavioral details like side effects, but these are partially covered under other dimensions. Overall, it is a fairly complete description for a simple duplication 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?

The schema provides only titles (e.g., 'Sheet Id') with no descriptions. The description compensates by explicitly listing each argument and giving a concise explanation, including the default behavior of insert_index (-1 for end). This adds substantial meaning beyond 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 uses a specific verb ('Duplicate/copy') plus a resource ('a sheet') and a scope ('within the same spreadsheet'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_sheet or rename_sheet. It is immediately obvious what the tool does.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is for copying an existing sheet as opposed to creating a new one, nor does it provide any exclusions or prerequisites. The description is purely functional without contextual usage advice.

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