duplicate_page

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

No annotations exist, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only restates the tool's name without explaining side effects (e.g., exact copy, layout impact) or whether the operation is destructive. This is insufficient 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 extremely concise (3 words) but omits essential context like positioning behavior or when to use. It is not earning its space by providing value beyond the tool name.

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?

With 3 parameters, no output schema, and sibling tools providing alternatives, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain return values, parameter roles (especially position logic), or how it differs from duplication of other elements.

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 67% (pageIndex and referencePageIndex have descriptions, position has enum but no description). The description adds no parameter-level information beyond what the schema provides, earning a baseline 3.

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 'Duplicate a page' uses a clear verb and specifies the resource (page), distinguishing it from sibling tools like duplicate_master_spread and duplicate_page_item. However, it lacks details about the duplication behavior (e.g., by default at end).

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 provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives like duplicate_spread or duplicate_page_item. There is no mention of prerequisites or context.

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