duplicate_page

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It usefully discloses that the result is a DRAFT (not published), that HubSpot derives new_slug if omitted, and that overrides follow update_page_draft's keys. It doesn't cover permissions or failure modes, but the key behavioral traits are conveyed.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and a memorable use case, then moves into a compact but complete Args list. Every sentence adds information; there is no filler 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?

All five parameters are explained, the draft behavior is clear, and the overrides field is delegated to update_page_draft's schema, which is an efficient cross-reference. The output schema exists, so return values need no description. Slight gaps remain around source-page prerequisites and edge cases, but overall it is complete enough for correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description must document parameters itself. It does so thoroughly: source_type is defined as 'landing' or 'site', new_slug's default behavior is explained, and overrides are tied to update_page_draft with a concrete example. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 states exactly what the tool does: 'Duplicate an existing page as a new DRAFT, optionally applying overrides.' It names the verb, resource, and output state, and the 'workhorse' example distinguishes it from creating a page from scratch or duplicating forms/emails.

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 concrete use case — 'take last quarter's webcast page and make this quarter's version out of it' — clearly tells an agent when to use this tool: when copying an existing page. It does not explicitly name alternatives like create_landing_page_draft or create_site_page_draft, but the context is strong enough to steer selection.

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