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

Annotations only say it is a non-destructive, non-idempotent, non-open-world write; the description adds substantially: the allow_copy precondition, concrete failure codes (403 copy_not_allowed, 410 revoked/expired/deleted) with an instruction not to work around them, the fact that the result is an unpublished draft independent of the source, and that it consumes storage quota.

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 trigger sentence, then structured bullets for preconditions, side effects, and follow-up calls — no filler. It runs long with heavy bolding and parenthetical keyword lists, which is slightly more than strictly needed, but each bullet carries operational information.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description implies the returned handles (version_id for read_version, proposal_id for publish_file) and covers preconditions, error paths, side effects, and the publish flow. An agent has everything needed to invoke it and handle failure.

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%, so link, title (default = original + '(copy)'), and folder_id (default = no folder) are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds only that the link is passed as-is from the user, which is marginal extra meaning over structured fields; baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource: copies the currently-published version of a shared LivePage into a new page in the caller's own workspace. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like create_proposal (blank new proposal), read_version (read only), and finalize_upload (publish an existing draft).

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?

Gives an explicit trigger ('when the user pastes a LivePage link and says copy it to my space / I want to edit it'), plus keyword aliases (copy, duplicate, save as, edit a copy). It also spells out the post-call sequence (read_version → edit → publish_file / finalize_upload), so the agent knows both when to enter and what to do next.

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