duplicate_node

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Duplicate a node' but does not explain key behaviors like whether it creates a deep or shallow copy, how the duplicate is named, or side effects on children, signals, or scripts. This is a critical gap for a duplication 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 a single sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and efficient, earning its place by being highly concise.

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 the complexity of duplicating a node (potential multiple outcomes, naming, error conditions) and the lack of output schema or annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to provide essential context about what the tool returns or its effects beyond the basic action.

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 single parameter 'path' has a description 'Node path to duplicate' which already covers its purpose. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides. With 100% schema coverage, baseline of 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 'Duplicate a node in the scene tree' clearly states the action (duplicate) and resource (node in scene tree), distinguishing it from sibling tools like delete_node, rename_node, move_node, and add_node. It is specific and unambiguous.

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 vs alternatives, such as prerequisites, limitations, or cases where other node manipulation tools might be more appropriate. Siblings include many similar tools, but no differentiation is given.

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