Copy sheet

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by enumerating what carries over (values, styles, dimensions), but says nothing about behavior when new_name collides with an existing sheet or about failure modes.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb and resource lead, and the parenthetical scope detail earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, for a mutation tool that creates a new sheet, the description omits whether it errors on a duplicate name or overwrites, leaving a meaningful gap.

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 100%, so all three parameters (path, sheet, new_name) are fully documented in the schema including naming constraints. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, which is the baseline-3 case.

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?

States a specific verb ('Duplicate') and resource ('worksheet') with a scoping qualifier ('within the workbook') plus the copied facets (values, styles, dimensions). This implicitly distinguishes it from copy_range, but does not name that sibling explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'within the workbook' signals this is an intra-workbook operation, contrasting with copy_range for cross-workbook copies. No explicit when-to-use, prerequisites, or alternative is named.

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