wiki_copy_node

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It conveys that this is a non-destructive copy operation and that cross-knowledge-base copying is allowed. However, it omits behavioral details such as whether child nodes are recursively copied, how the title parameter is used, or what happens when target_space_id/target_parent_token are not provided.

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 a single, compact sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and key qualifier (cross-knowledge-base). No wasted words.

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 tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, so the description should fill more gaps. It does not explain whether copying includes child nodes, what the output/return value is, or how the optional parameters behave when omitted. This is a significant shortfall for a moderately complex operation.

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 100% — every parameter has an individual description. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 (copy), the resource (nodes in a knowledge base), and the scope (can cross knowledge bases). The verb 'copy' distinguishes it from sibling tools like wiki_move_node and wiki_create_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?

Usage is implied by the verb 'copy' and the mention of cross-knowledge-base capability, but there are no explicit when-to-use vs. alternative instructions. It does not mention when to prefer this over wiki_move_node or wiki_create_node, nor any exclusions.

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