copy_report

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

With annotations readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, the description adds context that copying creates a new report without modifying the original, and it describes the return payload. It does not elaborate on permissions or other side effects, but the annotations already provide safety hints, so this is adequate.

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, two sentences, with no redundant content. It effectively conveys the purpose, usage context, and return format without unnecessary elaboration.

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?

The description is complete for this simple copy tool: it states what it does, when to use it, and what it returns. The annotations and schema descriptions cover the remaining context, so no critical information is missing.

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?

The input schema already has descriptions for all four parameters (name, folder, report_id, on_conflict), so the description does not add further parameter details. The description does mention the return structure but that is output-related, not parameter semantics. Thus the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 clearly states the tool copies a Visual Analytics report and returns the new copy's id. It is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools like create_report, delete_report, and export_report by focusing on the copy operation and its typical use cases.

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 provides explicit use cases (tailoring reports, copy-and-replace pattern) and references the companion tool apply_report_operations for the replace step. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or alternative tools, so it falls just short of a perfect score.

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