Copy Report

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint: true and idempotentHint: false. The description adds the return payload shape ({status, id, name, source_report_id}) and the copy-and-replace workflow, going beyond what annotations provide. It does not contradict the annotations, though it could have explained that on_conflict='replace' may overwrite an existing report.

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, front-loaded with the core action and result. The use-case sentence earns its place, and the return-format sentence is compact. 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?

Covers purpose, usage patterns, and return shape; with schema handling parameters and annotations handling destructive behavior, little is missing. A minor gap is not explicitly calling out that on_conflict='replace' can overwrite an existing report, though that is present in the schema.

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 100% with detailed descriptions for all four parameters, so the baseline applies. The description does not add parameter-level details 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?

States a specific verb ('Copy'), resource ('Visual Analytics report'), and outcome ('returning the copy's id'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling report tools such as create_report, delete_report, and get_report.

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?

Provides concrete use cases: tailoring a report to a new audience and the copy-and-replace pattern, explicitly naming apply_report_operations as the follow-up. It lacks explicit exclusions or alternative copy tools, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it.

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