replicate_sheet

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it discloses that this mutates the analysis definition, that a backup is created automatically beforehand, and that visual IDs are auto-prefixed with 'rc_'. Gaps remain on permissions/authorization and what happens if the target sheet name already exists, keeping it from a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then usage rationale, then side effects, then a clearly marked WARNING. Every sentence adds distinct information with no padding.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, the description covers the safety-relevant essentials (mutation, automatic backup, ID prefixing) and an output schema exists so return values needn't be explained. Minor omissions like target-name conflict behavior are the only 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 the schema already documents all three parameters (including the pointer to describe_analysis for sheet IDs). The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb (copy/replicate) and resource (all visuals from one sheet to a new sheet in the same analysis), and the scope 'same analysis' distinguishes it from clone_analysis. An agent can tell it apart from add_sheet and add_visual without opening either schema.

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?

Explicitly positions itself as 'the recommended way to duplicate a sheet' and names the alternative workflow ('adding visuals one at a time') that it beats on reliability. It lacks an explicit when-not-to-use condition, so it falls just short of a 5.

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