copy_report

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and covers the return value and workflow. It does not explicitly state that the source report is left untouched or warn about on_conflict='replace' overwriting, but those details are at least present in the parameter schema.

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 and front-loaded. It states the core purpose first, then adds only high-value context: use cases, companion tool, and return shape. No wasted words.

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 simple copy operation with a full input schema and output schema, the description is complete: it explains what the tool does, when to use it, how it fits with a sibling tool, and what the response looks like.

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 does not add meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions, which already explain name, folder, report_id, and on_conflict clearly.

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 object: 'Copy a Visual Analytics report to a new report, returning the copy's id.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like create_report or apply_report_operations by focusing on the copy operation.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: tailoring a report to a new audience and the copy-and-replace pattern. It even names the companion tool apply_report_operations for the subsequent step, giving the agent a clear workflow.

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