duplicate_report

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses the tool's behavior: cloning with ID regeneration, atomic-write, refusal on existing destination, and return value format. This is comprehensive and leaves no ambiguity.

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 concise (3 sentences + return type), front-loaded with the primary action. Every sentence adds essential information without redundancy.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, default behavior, failure condition, and return value. It even explains the rationale for ID regeneration. This is complete for a complex clone 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 description adds significant meaning beyond the schema, explaining the effect of 'regenerate_ids' with specifics about UUID rewriting for DataSourceID and ReportID. It clarifies that 'dst_path' is the new path and implies 'src_path' is the source.

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 'clone' and resource '.rdl', clearly distinguishing it from siblings like 'backup_report' or 'create_report'. It explicitly states the action and the file type.

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 explains the default behavior of 'regenerate_ids' and why it is needed (to avoid identity collisions in Power BI Report Builder). It also mentions atomic-write convention and failure condition. While it doesn't explicitly compare to alternatives, the context is clear enough for when to use this tool.

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