copy_wiki_node

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for transparency. It states 'deep-copy' and 'duplicated' but does not clarify if the copy includes all children, attachments, or comments, nor does it mention permission requirements or rate limits.

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 concise with two sentences front-loading the main purpose. However, it could be slightly more efficient without losing clarity; the second sentence is somewhat redundant with the first.

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?

Given the complexity of a deep-copy operation (especially cross-space) and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It does not explain the behavior regarding nested nodes, return values, or potential long-running operations, leaving significant ambiguity.

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?

The input schema covers all parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter context beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the semantics of target_parent_token or target_space_id.

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 clearly states the action (deep-copy), the resource (Wiki node), and the destination context (different location or space). This distinguishes it from siblings like move_wiki_node (move vs copy) and delete_wiki_node.

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?

The description implies using this tool for duplication, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use it over alternatives like move_wiki_node or create_wiki_node. It does not mention prerequisites or scenarios where copy is preferred.

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