Duplicate Page

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

Annotations already indicate this is not read-only, not idempotent, and not destructive. The description adds no further behavioral details such as side effects, permissions needed, or locking. It stays at the level of the annotations without contradiction.

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 efficiently conveys the core purpose without wasteful words. However, the language is French, which may reduce clarity for non-French-speaking agents, but this is not directly penalized in this dimension.

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 duplication tool with three required parameters and annotations present, the description is mostly adequate. It could mention what is included in the duplicate (content, structure) or the return value, but given the low complexity, it covers the essential function.

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 the parameters are already well-documented. The description does not add any extra meaning or examples beyond the schema definitions.

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 explicitly states the action ('duplicate'), the resource ('page'), and the distinguishing condition ('under a new name'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like coda_create_page or coda_rename_page.

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 is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as coda_create_page, coda_rename_page, or coda_update_page. The description only states the basic function without context for selection.

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