duplicate_page

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It mentions duplication is non-destructive (creates a copy), but lacks details on consequences (e.g., location of copy, 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 (one sentence) without redundancy. However, it lacks structure such as bullet points or separation of purpose, usage, and parameters, making it less scannable.

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 absence of annotations and low schema coverage, the description is insufficient. It omits details about the output, side effects, and required context (e.g., page existence). An output schema exists but description should still contextualize its use.

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 0%, and the description provides no explanation for parameters. It fails to define how to specify page_id_or_url or the effect of new_title (e.g., defaults, uniqueness).

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 tool's purpose: duplicating a page with identical content. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_page (which creates a new blank page) and archive_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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not specify prerequisites, such as requiring existing pages, or suggest when not to use it (e.g., for pages with complex content).

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