Copy an existing page with all text, shapes, images, and styling into a new page placed right after it, so you can reuse layouts without rebuilding them.
Duplicates an existing page (including all text, shapes, images, and styling) into a new page immediately following it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| index | No | 0-based page index to duplicate (defaults to active page) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.7Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses what content is copied and that the new page lands immediately after the source, but omits what is NOT copied, whether the new page becomes active, and what (if anything) is returned for chaining.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence that states the action, the copied content, and the resulting position with no filler. Every clause earns its place.
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?
For a simple one-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the essential behavior and outcome placement. It is close to complete, lacking only edge-case behavior such as the new page's active state or index of the duplicate.
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 100% and the single parameter's 0-based indexing and active-page default are already documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about the index, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 gives a specific verb (duplicates) and resource (page) and enumerates what is carried over (text, shapes, images, styling) plus the placement of the result. This implicitly separates it from page-creation and layer-level siblings, though no sibling is named explicitly.
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 the use case (copy an existing page's content rather than start blank), but never says when to prefer it over pages_add or how it relates to layer_duplicate. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated, so usage is inferred rather than guided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.