copy_range

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so excellently: the destination is overwritten, the source is buffered so overlapping pastes are safe, relative formulas shift while absolute anchors stay, hazardous workbooks are refused unless allow_loss is true, auto-backup occurs, saves are atomic and verified, and the tool refuses while the workbook is open in Excel.

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 dense but efficient, with each clause adding a meaningful behavioral constraint. It is front-loaded with the core operation and then lists edge cases. The grammar is a bit fragmented, especially the 'what is' clause, but it remains compact and scannable.

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 9-parameter tool with no annotations and zero schema descriptions, the description covers the major behavioral concerns: overlap safety, formula adjustment, data-loss protection, backups, atomic saves, and Excel-lock refusal. It falls short only on a few parameter details like verify_com, sheet, and explicit path/location-object shape, though an output schema exists to describe return values.

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 0%, so the description must add parameter meaning. It explains what values for 'what', location objects for source/dest, allow_loss, adjust_formulas, and backup behavior. However, it does not explain verify_com, sheet, or the exact structure of location objects.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Copy a source rectangle to a destination anchor.' It clearly distinguishes this from siblings like move_range, write_range, and copy_workbook by describing the exact object being copied and the destination concept.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use copy_range versus alternatives such as move_range, write_range, or copy_workbook. It explains mechanics and safety behavior but never states the intended selection conditions or when another tool should be preferred.

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