confluence_copy_page

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'copy a page' but fails to specify what gets copied (e.g., content only, or also attachments, comments, labels) or any side effects (e.g., does it preserve page hierarchy?). This lack of detail hinders the agent's ability to understand the tool's full impact.

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 extremely concise at one sentence, which is good for front-loading the core action. However, it might be considered too terse given that it omits useful context that could fit in a slightly longer description. Still, it avoids unnecessary verbosity.

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 an output schema, the description should provide more context about the copy operation's behavior, such as whether child pages are copied, how conflicts are handled, or the result format. The current description is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's capabilities and limitations.

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?

The input schema already provides clear descriptions for all four parameters (100% coverage). The tool description does not add any additional semantic information beyond what the schema offers, so it meets the baseline expectation without adding extra 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 specific verb 'copy' and resource 'page', with the optional capability to copy to a different space. This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'move_page' (which moves rather than copies) and 'create_page' (which creates from scratch).

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'move_page' or 'create_page'. It does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or typical use cases, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the tool name alone.

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