copy_workbook

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does an excellent job: byte-for-byte copy, overwrite behavior, backup rotation into .ks4xl-backups prev, restore path, and return value are all disclosed. This goes well beyond what the schema or annotations reveal.

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 compact but information-dense, front-loading the core operation before explaining overwrite and backup behavior. Every sentence contributes meaning and none is wasted.

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 3-parameter utility with a stated output, the description covers the operation, edge cases, backup behavior, restoration path, and intended usage. Even with an output schema present, it still clarifies the return value. No significant invocation-relevant gap remains.

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 define the parameters, and it does: src and dst are the source/destination paths, and overwrite's default and side effects are fully explained. No crucial parameter meaning is left to the agent to infer.

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 states a specific verb and resource: copy a workbook file byte-for-byte from src to dst. It also clarifies the unique value proposition (no re-serialization, charts/shapes/macros carry over), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like copy_range or create_workbook.

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?

It explicitly recommends a use case: branch a working copy before a risky batch of edits. However, it does not name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it lacks the full when/when-not/alternatives specificity of a 5.

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