duplicate_page

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose two useful behavioral traits: automatic name suffixing ('Page 2, Page 3...') and that activate:true switches the current page. However, it omits whether the duplicate is created adjacent to the source, permission/auth requirements, and whether the original is unaffected.

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?

Three tight sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the conditional naming/activation details following. Every sentence 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?

No output schema and no annotations, so the description should carry more. It never states what is returned (e.g. the new page's id/name), which an agent likely needs to act on the duplicate afterward, and gives no indication of failure modes if pageId is invalid.

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 67% (name and activate documented, pageId not), so the baseline is a 3. The description adds meaning for the naming fallback ('auto-suffixes... unless a name is given') and confirms activate semantics, but adds nothing for the undocumented pageId beyond restating it.

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 ('Duplicate a page') plus the scope of the copy ('including all contents'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like create_page (blank page) and clone_node (node-level copy), so an agent can route without opening the schema.

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?

Usage is implied by the naming and activation behavior, but the description never states when to choose duplicate_page over create_page or clone_node, nor any prerequisite (e.g. the page must exist / be in the current document). No explicit exclusions or alternatives are given.

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