clone_page

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: deep copy, unique section name generation, ordinal placement, display name setting, visual ID regeneration, and return value. It does not mention permissions or whether the original page is affected, but the provided details are solid for a creation tool.

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, perfectly front-loaded with the core action, followed by specific details and the return value. Every clause earns its place, with no fluff or repetition.

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 3-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential behavior, unique ID handling, and return value. It lacks explicit error/prerequisite information, but the tool appears self-contained and the description is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 67%, with reportSessionId undocumented. The description adds meaning by clarifying that newDisplayName is the tab title while a fresh section name is auto-generated, which helps explain how that parameter is used. However, it does not fully compensate for the unexplained session ID parameter, bringing it to baseline.

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 uses a specific verb ('Deep-clone') with a clear resource ('a report page') and details the exact operations performed (copies section, assigns unique section name and ordinal, sets display name, regenerates visual IDs). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like clone_visual and rename_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?

The description clearly implies its use case: duplicating a page with unique IDs and a new display name. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the context is unambiguous given the sibling tools. A brief exclusion note would push it to a 5.

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