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

Goes well beyond the annotations: original is not changed, exactly which fields are copied (protected custom fields excluded), undo trashes the copy, and critically the approval-gate behavior — nothing changes on the site until a person approves in Royally. That queueing trait is not derivable from readOnlyHint=false / destructiveHint=false / openWorldHint=true and is essential for an agent to predict timing.

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 action and outcome, then constraints and alternatives; nearly every clause carries information. The trailing '(site: demo.royalplugins.com)' restates the site_id enum description and is mild redundancy. No wasted preamble otherwise.

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 complex mutation behind an approval queue with no output schema, it covers safety, scope, alternatives, undo, and field coverage. The remaining gap is whether the call returns the new draft's ID and what an approval-pending response looks like, which an agent needs to chain into an edit.

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% (id, title with default, site_id with a single-value enum), so the schema already documents every parameter. The description adds the copy semantics around 'title' (defaults to the original title) and the site context, but contributes little parameter-level detail beyond that. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 — copy a post/page/public content item into a new draft owned by you — plus the exact field set carried over. It explicitly differentiates from elementor_clone_page/divi_clone_page (builder pages with layout) and WooCommerce product copying, so the agent can route without opening sibling schemas.

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 the motivating use case ('prepare changes to published content, required in drafts-only mode') and the follow-up action ('then edit the copy'). It names concrete alternatives with the condition that selects them (builder pages, products) rather than leaving exclusions implicit.

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