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

Beyond the annotations (which flag it as a non-idempotent, destructive, open-world write), the description discloses cost ("Free: spends no credits"), the preview-vs-commit split, live-site visibility of saved changes, and reconciliation needed after a lost write reply. These are exactly the behavioral traits structured fields cannot convey.

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 ordered toward the mutation-safety concerns. Dense but every sentence carries information; no filler.

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 mutation tool with annotations and no output schema, the description covers the confirm gate, cost, live-site effect, and write-recovery path. Sufficient to invoke correctly; only the optional naming parameters (slug/title/nav_label) are left to 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 coverage is 50%. The description does add value for confirm and if_unchanged (workflow gating and the source of the revision), but those semantics largely also appear in the schema field descriptions, and slug/title/nav_label get no explanation beyond the schema. Marginal added meaning over structured data.

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?

"Copy one selected page into a new page" states a specific verb (copy) and resource (page) clearly, letting an agent distinguish it from soclo_page_add or soclo_page_save. Sibling differentiation is implied by the duplication framing but no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

It gives clear preconditions and workflow: needs the if_unchanged revision from soclo_page_pages, returns a preview without confirm:true, and confirm:true should only be passed after owner approval. It stops short of naming an explicit alternative tool or when-not-to-use, keeping it below 5.

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