copy_sheet

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It tells what is copied (contents, formulas, styles) but does not state whether the original sheet remains, whether the copy includes comments, charts, or tables, or anything about permissions or side effects. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 a clean args list. No wasted words; each sentence earns its place.

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 4-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and an output schema, the description covers purpose and three parameters but omits the 'backup' parameter and any behavioral details like what happens to the original or what the return value is. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain returns, but the missing parameter and side-effect information leaves it incomplete.

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 compensate. It documents path, source_sheet, and target_sheet, adding meaning (e.g., '1-31 chars, valid Excel sheet name' for target_sheet). However, the 'backup' parameter is completely undocumented in both schema and description, leaving one of four parameters unexplained. The description adds value but does not fully compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Duplicate a sheet including its contents, formulas, and styles.' Clearly distinguishes from siblings like create_sheet or rename_sheet by describing exactly what it copies.

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?

Implied usage: use this when you want to copy an existing sheet. But no explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives (e.g., create_sheet + write_cells). The context of duplicating is clear, but it doesn't tell the agent when to prefer this over other ways to create a sheet.

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