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

Adds meaningful context beyond annotations: the builder JSON never passes through context, nothing is truncated/rebuilt, and the source is untouched. Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description's added value is the mechanism and the non-destructive guarantee. It does not, however, explain side effects like what happens to menus, templates, or translations.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and each sentence earns its place by adding mechanism and the sibling routing guidance. No waste, no repetition of the name.

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, mechanism, default status, source safety, and the key sibling alternative for a 6-param mutation tool with no output schema. It does not mention post_type's default or what the response contains (e.g., new page ID), but those are partially in the schema and less critical.

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 each parameter is already documented. The description adds only the default status (DRAFT) and the semantic that post_id is the SOURCE to copy, but the schema already states this. Baseline 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.

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+resource ('Duplicate a page EXACTLY, server-side') and immediately qualifies coverage ('Elementor, Gutenberg or classic'). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the nearest sibling (wp_get_page) and from the read-and-recreate approach.

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 when: 'Use this for clone this page instead of reading the source with wp_get_page and re-creating it,' plus the condition that makes the alternative fail (Elementor data is hundreds of KB and cannot be reproduced losslessly). It also states the default behavior (creates a DRAFT).

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