Copy Page

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the key non-destructive nature: 'the source page is left untouched — this never moves or deletes anything.' This is valuable. However, it omits other behavioral details such as whether child pages are copied, what happens to permissions, or any prerequisites. For a copy tool, the non-destructive guarantee is essential but not exhaustive.

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 two sentences with zero fluff. The primary action is front-loaded ('Copies a page into another section'), and the critical clarification about non-destructive behavior follows immediately. Every word earns its place, making it highly efficient.

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 copy tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior: what it does and that it is non-destructive. It does not describe the copy's scope (e.g., subpages, attachments) or error conditions, but these are not essential for basic invocation. Given the simplicity and clear purpose, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to use it correctly.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage, with clear descriptions for both pageId ('ID of the page to copy') and targetSectionId ('ID of the section to copy the page into'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so it does not improve parameter understanding. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents the parameters fully.

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 the action: 'Copies a page into another section', with a specific verb and resource. It further distinguishes itself from move/delete operations by explicitly stating 'the source page is left untouched — this never moves or deletes anything.' This differentiates it from sibling tools like delete_page and update_page, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 gives a clear context of use: duplicating a page into a different section. It also provides a negative constraint ('never moves or deletes anything') which implicitly tells the agent this is not for moving pages. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide when-to-use/when-not-to-use comparisons, though the purpose is self-evident. This is strong but not fully explicit.

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