Clone node

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (write, non-destructive, idempotent), so the description earns credit for adding behavior: the clone carries the entire subtree, and for slides it lands adjacent in the row and returns row/col. It doesn't say whether the source is untouched or what the default placement is for a non-slide node (the schema's parentId default handles that), leaving a modest gap.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action before the slide special case. The slide sentence is dash-heavy and dense, but no sentence is wasted.

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 write tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the definition covers what it does, where it is supported, and part of the return shape (row/col). It never mentions whether the original node remains unchanged or whether the duplicate inherits names, which an agent might wonder about.

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 coverage is 57%, so the description should compensate but mostly restates the schema's own parentId slide-row note ("a SLIDE_ROW") and position semantics. Its only genuinely additive parameter information is the row/col return values, which matters because there is no output schema.

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?

"Duplicate a node with its whole subtree" is a precise verb+resource, and the parent/position clause clarifies scope beyond a simple copy. It does not name a specific sibling (e.g., figma_reparent_nodes or figma_create_instance) that an agent might confuse it with, so it stops short of the top band.

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?

It states the context in which the optional parentId/repositioning applies and scopes editor support ("Editors: Design; unverified: FigJam, Slides"), which is real selection guidance. It never names an alternative tool or a when-not condition, so it is clear context without exclusions.

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