Copy Page

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

Annotations include destructiveHint=true, indicating potential destructive impact. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond this: it discloses that Cloud uses a native copy endpoint while Server/DC fetches the body and creates a new page, and that attachments are skipped on Server/DC. This transparently surfaces platform-specific behaviors that are not in the annotations or schema.

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 compact, front-loaded with the purpose, and every sentence adds value. The first sentence states the core function, the second explains platform-dependent behaviors. No redundant or filler content.

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 copy operation with 5 parameters and an output schema, the description sufficiently explains the key behavioral differences (Cloud vs Server/DC, attachment handling). It does not detail edge cases like duplicate title handling or permission requirements, but the provided information is adequate for basic usage. The output schema covers return values, and annotations cover safety hints, leaving the description to focus on the operation's core context.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add new meaning beyond the schema; it mentions attachment copying in the context of platform differences, which aligns with the copy_attachments parameter description but does not extend it. The parameter details are already well-documented in the schema, so no additional value is provided.

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 'Copy a Confluence page to a new location' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like move_page or create_page by explicitly focusing on copying. The additional platform-specific implementation details further clarify the scope.

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 clear behavioral context for Cloud vs Server/DC, including the limitation that attachments are not copied on Server/DC. This informs usage decisions (e.g., if attachments are critical, the Server/DC path is insufficient), but it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool. The context is solid though not fully explicit.

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