copy_page

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that assets are copied along with the page, which is useful, but omits permissions, what happens if the slug already exists, whether the source is unaffected, and whether assets include subpages or child content.

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?

Uses a compact Args/Returns layout front-loaded with the one-line purpose, and each parameter line carries information. The 'Returns: JSON-compatible copied page' line is somewhat redundant given an output schema exists.

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?

The presence of an output schema removes the need to explain return values, and parameter coverage is decent. However, with zero annotations the description should be doing more behavioral work for a mutating tool that creates new content.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: it explains the id-vs-path precedence rule, defines path as a slash-separated source page path, and clarifies that an empty target_parent_id means root. It stops short of stating title/slug format or uniqueness constraints.

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?

States a specific verb and resource plus scope: 'Copy a page and its assets.' That is clear and distinguishable from siblings like move_page, add_page, or edit_page, though the description never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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?

No guidance on when to use copy_page versus alternatives such as move_page (relocate) or add_page (create from scratch), and no prerequisites or constraints. The only routing hint is the id-vs-path precedence, which is parameter semantics rather than usage guidance.

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