duplicate_page_item

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

The description lacks any behavioral details beyond the obvious duplication function. Since no annotations are provided, the description should compensate by disclosing actions like whether the original item remains, if permissions are required, or any side effects. It does not, leaving the agent without crucial context.

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 (one sentence), but it is too minimal to be informative. While brevity is valued, the description could include essential details (like coordinate placement) without becoming verbose. It earns a middle score for not being wasteful but failing to offer meaningful content.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (4 required parameters, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the function returns (e.g., index of the new duplicate) or provide context about the duplication behavior. With many sibling duplication tools, more context is needed for correct selection.

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 provides full coverage (100%) with descriptions for all four parameters. The description adds no additional semantic value beyond what is already in the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema carries the explanatory burden.

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 verb 'duplicate' and resource 'page item', making the basic purpose obvious. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'duplicate_page' or 'duplicate_spread', which also perform duplication but on different objects. A more specific description (e.g., 'Duplicate a page item and place it at the given coordinates') would enhance clarity.

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 versus alternatives. For example, it does not explain scenarios where duplicating a page item is appropriate compared to using 'duplicate_page' or 'duplicate_spread'. There is no mention of prerequisites or when not to use it.

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