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 restates the operation and gives no detail about side effects, whether the original node is preserved, how duplicates are positioned, whether the new node becomes selected, or what the tool returns. This is effectively no behavioral transparency beyond the operation name.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant wording. It is efficient, though it lacks structure and detail; the conciseness is good even if the content is thin.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the definition is under-equipped. It does not explain what happens when the duplicate is created, how count and offsets interact, what the resulting selection is, or how this tool relates to batch_duplicate. The schema covers parameters, but the behavioral and contextual gaps remain significant.

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 already documents all four parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, but it does not need to compensate because nodeId, count, offsetX, and offsetY are already described in the 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?

The description states the operation and target clearly: 'Duplicate a node.' It identifies a specific verb and resource, but it does not distinguish this tool from siblings like batch_duplicate or duplicate_page, 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention that this is for a single node, when batch_duplicate would be preferred, or how it differs from duplicate_page. The agent is left to infer usage entirely from the tool name.

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