duplicate_page

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It lists specific omitted block types (child_page, synced_block, child_database, link_to_page), how meeting notes are handled (summary/notes only, with a read_only_block_rendered warning), and the unsupported deep-duplication of subpages. All critical side effects and limitations are transparently stated.

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 thorough but front-loaded with the main verb and resource, then proceeds to edge cases and limitations. While slightly long, each sentence adds necessary detail without redundancy, earning its place.

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 duplication across block types, the description covers what is duplicated, what is omitted, warnings generated, and known limitations (subpages, meeting notes). It provides sufficient detail for an agent to understand the tool's behavior and expected outcomes, despite lack of output schema.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond schema by explaining default behavior for title (source title + ' (Copy)') and parent_page_id fallback logic (to source page's parent, then similar to create_page). This context aids correct parameter selection.

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 explicitly states 'Duplicate a page' and details the operation: reading all blocks from the source and creating a new page with the same content. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_page by focusing on duplication and mentioning unsupported block types and limitations.

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 provides clear when-to-use context and important caveats: pages with unsupported block types will omit those blocks and emit warnings, Notion AI meeting notes are partially duplicated, and deep-duplication of subpages is not supported. It implicitly guides when to avoid this tool (e.g., for deep copies or when certain blocks are required).

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