Copy an operator node to a specified destination parent path, optionally assigning a new name.
Copy a node into a destination parent.
sourcePath (<class 'str'>): Path of the operator to copy.
destParentPath (<class 'str'>): Destination parent COMP path.
name (str | None): Name for the copy; TD assigns if omitted.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | ||
| sourcePath | Yes | ||
| destParentPath | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It mentions that TD assigns the name if omitted, which is a useful detail, but it does not disclose whether the copy is shallow or deep, whether it overwrites existing destinations, what permissions are required, or any safety considerations for this mutation operation.
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 tightly structured: a one-sentence operation statement followed by a concise parameter list. Every sentence carries useful information, and there is no repetition of schema data or filler text.
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 is simple and the description gives enough to call it with the required parameters. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it omits return behavior, error conditions, and copy semantics (e.g., deep vs shallow, name conflict handling), which an agent might need to use it confidently in context.
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%, yet the description documents all three parameters with concrete semantics: sourcePath as the path of the operator to copy, destParentPath as the destination COMP path, and name with its default behavior. This fully compensates for the schema's bare titles.
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 first sentence, 'Copy a node into a destination parent,' states a specific verb (copy), a resource (node), and the destination context. This clearly distinguishes node_copy from siblings like node_create (new node), node_rename, and node_get, even without naming them.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies a copying use case from the name and parameters, but there are no explicit conditions, exclusions, or mentions of sibling tools, leaving selection entirely to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.