copy_worksheet

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

The destructiveHint annotation already signals mutation, so the description does not need to repeat that. It does add useful behavioral context by listing what gets copied, but it omits important behavioral details such as whether an existing target_sheet is overwritten, whether the operation can be undone, or any side effects on workbook state.

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 sentence with no filler; it states the action, the resource, and the included elements efficiently. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 destructiveHint annotation, no output schema, and sparse parameter descriptions, the tool needs more context to be safely invoked. Critical gaps include what happens if the target worksheet already exists, whether the copied content is linked to the original, and what 'rules' specifically includes. The description is too thin for a destructive worksheet-level 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden of explaining parameters, but it provides none. While the parameter names 'filepath', 'source_sheet', and 'target_sheet' are self-explanatory, there is no clarification of expected formats, overwrite behavior, or relationship between source and target.

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 ('Copy') and resource ('worksheet'), and enumerates the copied components: 'tables, rules, charts, names, and layout settings.' This makes the tool's scope clear and distinguishes it from range-level operations like copy_range, though it does not explicitly name any sibling.

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, no mention of prerequisites, and no exclusion criteria. The description only states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer when it applies.

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