copy_page_to_space

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

Annotations already establish the safety profile: readOnlyHint=false (mutation), destructiveHint=false (source preserved), openWorldHint=true (external effects). The description adds the access-scoped behavior ('accessible sub-pages'), which is useful auth context, but it leaves partial-failure behavior unspecified — what happens to the copy if some sub-pages are inaccessible is not disclosed.

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?

A single sentence opens with the verb and packs the object, sub-page scope, and destination into one clause with zero filler. Every word 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?

For a simple two-parameter tool with fully covered schema and no output schema, the core behavior is adequately described. The gap is edge-case behavior raised by the 'accessible' qualifier — partial copy vs. whole-operation failure — and the unspecified case where space_id equals the source space.

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 both parameters are already documented (page_id as 'Page UUID or slugId', space_id as 'Destination space'). The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, matching the baseline of 3 for full coverage.

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 ('Copy'), resource ('a page and its accessible sub-pages'), and destination ('a different space'). This implicitly distinguishes it from the move siblings and duplicate_page via the copy-vs-move verb and cross-space scope, though the differentiation is not made explicit.

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 use case is implied: copy (rather than move) a page tree into a different space, which hints at the line between this tool and move_page/move_page_to_space/duplicate_page. However, it never names alternatives or states when not to use it, so the agent must infer sibling selection purely from verb semantics.

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