pbi_duplicate_page

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

The description adds meaningful behavior beyond the annotations: it explains that duplication is atomic ('in a single transaction'), that unique identifiers (page and visual) are regenerated, and that everything else is preserved. This addresses side-effect expectations despite the annotations being mostly false/neutral.

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: two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and followed by key behavioral details. Every sentence adds value without unnecessary length.

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 covers the core duplication behavior and ID regeneration, and an output schema exists to describe return values. However, it omits important operational constraints such as whether the source page must exist, whether 'new_name' must be unique, or what happens to visual references. This is adequate but incomplete for smooth invocation.

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%, and the description does not explain the 'page', 'new_name', or 'request_id' parameters. It only indirectly references the page concept; 'new_name' and 'request_id' are left entirely unexplained, so the agent cannot infer parameter meaning from the description.

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 states a specific action ('Duplicates a page with all its visuals') and resource ('page'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like pbi_duplicate_visual. It also adds scope ('all its visuals') and execution context ('in a single transaction').

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?

Usage context is implied: use this when you need to duplicate a page and its visuals. However, there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which alternative to choose (e.g., pbi_duplicate_visual for just one visual, pbi_create_page_from_spec for building from spec).

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