Conduit

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

The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it specifies that duplication includes 'all its children' and describes the return format ('Array of objects... with the new page info as JSON'). Annotations provide edgeCaseWarnings about independent children and readOnlyHint=false for mutation, but the description complements this with output details not covered elsewhere.

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 sentences: first states the core action and scope, second describes the return format. Every sentence adds essential information with zero waste, and the purpose is front-loaded effectively.

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 tool's moderate complexity (duplication with children), rich annotations (including edgeCaseWarnings and usageExamples), and no output schema, the description provides complete context: it clarifies the scope, output format, and complements annotations without redundancy.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents both parameters (pageId and newPageName). The description doesn't add parameter-specific details beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 without compensating value.

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 ('Duplicate') and resource ('a Figma page and all its children as a new page'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like duplicate_node (which duplicates individual nodes) and create_page (which creates empty pages). The verb+resource combination is specific and unambiguous.

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 implies usage for duplicating entire pages with their contents, but doesn't explicitly state when to use alternatives like duplicate_node for partial duplication or create_page for empty pages. The annotations provide extraInfo clarifying 'entire page and its contents', which helps but isn't in the description itself.

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