pbi_duplicate_page

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation is transactional ('en una sola transaccion'), regenerates unique identifiers for the page and visuals, and preserves everything else. This goes beyond a generic 'duplicate page' statement, though it doesn't cover error cases or permissions.

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 short, front-loaded sentences immediately state the operation and then add critical behavioral detail. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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?

The description is adequate for a simple duplication operation, with output schema available for return values. However, it leaves usage guidance and parameter semantics mostly implicit, and there is no annotation support, so the agent might be uncertain about prerequisites or request_id handling.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It implies that 'page' is the source page and 'new_name' is the new page name via the duplication semantics, but it never explicitly maps them or explains 'request_id'. The description adds limited value beyond the schema titles.

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 uses a specific verb ('Duplica') and resource ('una pagina con todos sus visuales'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like pbi_duplicate_visual (duplicates a visual) and pbi_delete_page (deletes a page).

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 clearly implies the use case: copying a page and all its visuals in one operation. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is unambiguous enough for an agent to select it over related page operations.

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