duplicate_node

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses automatic saving, default naming and parent behavior, return values (originalPath and newPath), error conditions, and the critical requirement that no Godot runtime session be active, naming stop_project and detach_project as remedies. This is strong, though it could mention reversibility or deeper semantics.

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 front-loaded with the core action, followed by defaults, return values, and error conditions. It is compact but includes some redundancy with the schema (defaults). Overall efficient.

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?

Given an output schema exists, the description needn't explain return values, yet it still summarizes them. It covers defaults, error cases, and a critical runtime prerequisite. For a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema gaps, and complete parameter schema, this is fully adequate.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters including defaults for newName and targetParentPath. The description repeats those defaults but adds no extra syntax or format details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ('Duplicate a node and its descendants in a Godot scene') and explicitly contrasts itself with the node-by-node approach via add_node. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like add_node.

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?

Provides clear context by contrasting with add_node and explaining default behavior for newName and targetParentPath. It also defines error conditions (nodePath nonexistent, targetParentPath invalid) and runtime session conflicts. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to prefer this over other siblings beyond add_node.

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