duplicate_page

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

With no annotations, the description alone must disclose behavior. It states the basic mutation ('Duplicate an entire page') but does not mention side effects, such as whether child content is copied, where the duplicate is placed, or whether an existing page is modified. It also does not clarify permissions or reversibility.

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?

The description is one short sentence with no filler and is appropriately front-loaded for a simple operation. It earns its place, though it sacrifices useful detail for brevity.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description is under-specified. It does not explain the result of the operation, how the new page is named when 'name' is omitted, or whether 'entire page' includes all nested layers. Sibling tools like create_new_page and duplicate_node highlight context the description leaves unresolved.

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 both parameters (pageId and name) already carry descriptions. The tool description adds only the 'entire page' scope and no new parameter meaning. Baseline 3 applies because 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?

The description names the verb ('Duplicate') and the resource ('an entire page'), making the operation unambiguous. The word 'entire' signals page-level scope, loosely distinguishing it from the sibling duplicate_node. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives, but the core purpose is clear.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to choose duplicate_page over duplicate_node, create_new_page, or create_page. The description only states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context. This is a clear gap for a tool with many page- and node-related siblings.

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