duplicate_node

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action and a use case; it does not mention whether the duplicate includes child elements, how the offset parameters affect placement, permissions required, or any return value. For a mutation tool without annotation support, this is a significant 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?

The description is a single sentence, front-loaded with the primary action and resource, followed by a brief example. There is no redundant information or wasted words. It is concise and well-structured for quick scanning.

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?

The tool has four parameters and no output schema. While the schema documents parameters, the description does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., the new node's ID) or any side effects beyond duplication. For a mutation operation, this missing return information reduces completeness, though the core operation is straightforward.

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 descriptions for all four parameters (100% coverage), so the schema already documents parameter meanings. The description does not add extra detail beyond the schema—it mentions 'node or screen' but does not elaborate on name, offsetX, or offsetY. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema captures the semantics.

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 a clear verb ('duplicate') and resource ('node or screen'), and provides an example use case ('creating variant states for prototyping'). This clearly distinguishes the operation from sibling creation tools like create_frame or create_rectangle, since the focus is on copying an existing element rather than creating new ones.

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 description gives a specific context for use ('for creating variant states for prototyping'), which tells the agent when this tool is appropriate. It does not explicitly compare with alternatives or state exclusions, but the example provides enough guidance to select this tool over others. The absence of explicit 'instead of' phrasing keeps it from a 5.

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