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

Goes well beyond annotations: discloses the copy is an unpublished draft, that it is independent from the source thereafter, that it counts toward storage quota, and that copying requires allow_copy and an unlocked link. These are behavioral traits the structured fields do not carry.

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 primary trigger and followed by bulleted consequences, so structure is strong; however the description is fairly long and some quota/moderation detail is secondary for the immediate call.

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 no output schema, the description covers what is created, its visibility, error outcomes and the entire downstream workflow, so an agent has everything needed to call it and proceed.

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 applies: the schema already documents link, title (with '(copy)' default) and folder_id. The description mentions link only implicitly ('the user pastes a LivePage link') and adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema.

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 version readers currently see into a new page in your own workspace') and names the trigger context, distinguishing it from create_proposal and publish_file in the sibling list.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it (user pastes a LivePage link and asks to copy/edit/rewrite), enumerates exact error conditions (403 copy_not_allowed, 410 revoked/expired) and instructs not to work around them, and routes the agent to read_version/publish_file/finalize_upload as follow-ups.

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