sheets_copy_to

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description 'Copy a sheet' adds minimal behavioral context beyond the tool name; it does not explain side effects like whether a new sheet is created in the destination or whether formatting/formulas carry over. However, given the annotation coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource. It contains no filler, repetition, or unnecessary details, making it highly efficient for an agent 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?

For a simple three-parameter tool with full schema descriptions and safety annotations, the description is nearly complete. It clearly communicates the cross-spreadsheet nature of the operation. It lacks explicit return-value info, but the absence of an output schema makes that less critical. The main gap is not mentioning prerequisites like access permissions to both spreadsheets, but that is not essential for invocation.

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 documentation covers all three parameters with descriptions of sheetId, spreadsheetId, and destinationSpreadsheetId (100% coverage). The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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') and the resource ('a sheet') with a specific destination ('another Google Sheets spreadsheet'). This distinguishes it from siblings like sheets_duplicate_sheet, which likely copies within the same spreadsheet, and sheets_insert_sheet, which creates a blank sheet.

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 the appropriate use case: copying a sheet across spreadsheets. While it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or name a sibling tool, the phrase 'another Google Sheets spreadsheet' provides clear context for when this tool is the right choice over in-spreadsheet duplication tools.

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