duplicate_page

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the description adds context by clarifying 'accessible sub-pages' and 'same space' scope. It doesn't disclose details about whether duplicates link to the original, naming conventions, or whether sub-pages are copied recursively with full fidelity—useful behavioral traits for a duplication 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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb 'Duplicate' and resource. Every word earns its place, and the 'accessible sub-pages' qualifier adds important scope without extra length.

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 straightforward single-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description is mostly adequate. However, it lacks guidance on the result (e.g., what is returned, whether a new page ID is provided) and doesn't mention potential pitfalls like duplicating into a space with conflicting slugs or permission requirements.

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 only parameter page_id is fully described as 'Page UUID or slugId'. The description merely reinforces that page_id identifies the page to duplicate, adding no new meaning like format requirements or edge cases beyond the schema.

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?

Uses a specific verb 'Duplicate' with a clear resource ('a page and its accessible sub-pages') and scope ('within the same space'). Distinguishes from siblings like copy_page_to_space by noting the operation stays in the same space, but doesn't explicitly name alternatives like copy_page_to_space for cross-space duplication.

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?

Implies it is for duplicating pages in the same space, and the phrase 'accessible sub-pages' hints at permissions-based inclusion. But it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs copy_page_to_space, move_page, or create_page, and gives no conditions like 'if you need a copy in another space, use copy_page_to_space instead.'

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