Copy Table

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

With annotations providing only openWorldHint and no read-only/destructive hints, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the copy is server-side, preserves structure, and 'remains in the working copy,' which is important context for persistence. It does not fully explain overwrite behavior or failure cases, but the core side-effect model is transparent.

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?

Three sentences carry the essential purpose, usage, and persistence caveat. Information is front-loaded: the verb and resource appear immediately, optional behaviors are compactly listed, and the working-copy note is placed last where it is easy to remember. There is no redundant or filler content.

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 an 8-parameter tool with no output schema and sparse annotations, the description covers the key operational context: what is copied, where it goes, how to create a new module, and how persistence works. It could be more explicit about cross-project limitations and the exact meaning of 'replace the source properties,' but the essential guidance is present.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics by clarifying that moduleName/name are destination values, that modulePath creates a new .xlsx module, and that properties can be replaced. This goes beyond the schema's basic 'name' and 'pattern' descriptions, though it does not elaborate on projectId or response_format beyond what the schema already states.

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 table inside the same project using Studio's server-side copy operation.' It further distinguishes this from file copying by emphasizing preserved table structure such as formatting, merged cells, and comments, and by naming table-focused options like sheet names and module paths.

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 clearly states what is needed to use the tool ('Provide the destination module and new table name') and outlines the optional variations: choosing a sheet, creating a new .xlsx module, or replacing properties. It also gives a key follow-up action ('use openl_save_project for Git-backed projects'). It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or exclusion conditions, so it falls 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.