duplicate_space

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It reveals that the operation creates a full copy, but does not disclose details like required permissions, whether the operation is synchronous, side effects on the original, or what the response contains. This is a minimal disclosure for a mutation tool.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes a parenthetical clarifying the nature of the copy. No wasted words or redundancy.

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 tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema, but the description is minimal. It covers the basic purpose but does not explain what exactly 'full copy' includes (pages, settings, etc.) or any potential limitations. Given the low complexity and schema richness, the description is adequate but not fully complete.

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 schema already provides a complete description for the only parameter (spaceId: 'The ID of the space to duplicate'), achieving 100% coverage. The tool description does not add additional meaning to the parameter beyond what the schema states, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('Duplicate') and the resource ('existing GitBook space'), with an added clarification that it creates a full copy. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_space (new space) or update_space (modify an existing space).

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 usage context is implicitly clear: use it when you need an exact copy of a space. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, such as distinguishing from create_space or when a non-full copy is needed. The description implies usage but lacks explicit guidance.

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