elements_duplicate

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

With only destructiveHint=true available, the description adds meaningful behavior: deterministic local-ID remapping, the precise scope of reference rewriting ('Only internal fragment references in a copied subtree'), and a precondition on malformed IDs. It does not explain why the operation is flagged destructive or what document state changes occur, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Two dense sentences with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded before the constraint. The second sentence packs edge-case detail ('only internal fragment references... rewritten') that is somewhat compressed but still earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the description supplies solid behavioral context for a mutation tool. The notable gap is parameter semantics for a 7-param required-heavy schema, plus no explanation of the destructive annotation, leaving the definition only partially complete.

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% across 7 parameters, so the description must compensate but only gesture at 'mode' via copy/use and 'id' via the malformed-ID precondition. newId, parentId, path, workspaceId, and expectedRevision are left entirely undocumented, so most parameters lack semantic guidance.

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 uses a specific verb ('Duplicates') plus resource ('bounded SVG subtree') and names the alternative behavior ('or creates an explicit SVG use clone'), making the two modes distinguishable. It does not explicitly name a sibling like elements_create to differentiate, so it stops short of a 5.

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 implies mode selection (copy vs use clone) and states a prerequisite ('malformed source IDs must be normalized first'), which routes the agent to document_normalize_ids. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not-to-use guidance relative to sibling creation/grouping tools.

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