duplicate_node

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

With no annotations, the description minimally describes the action ('duplicate') but does not explain behavioral details such as whether child nodes are copied, permissions required, or side effects. The agent cannot infer the full impact.

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 without fluff, but it is too sparse to be considered well-structured. Conciseness is achieved at the expense of necessary details.

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 description is extremely incomplete for a tool with two parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. It fails to explain return values, side effects, or how the duplication is performed, leaving the agent underinformed.

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 description provides no information about the parameters (new_name or node_path). Given 0% schema description coverage, the agent must guess the meaning and constraints of these fields, which is insufficient for correct invocation.

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 node' clearly states the action and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like delete_node or add_node. However, it does not specify the context (e.g., scene tree nodes) which is implied by sibling names.

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 like instantiate_scene or reparent_node. The description lacks any context about appropriate scenarios or prerequisites.

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