clone_node

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It establishes that this is a mutating copy operation, but says nothing about whether the clone is deep (children, styles, bindings, instances) or shallow, whether the source node is untouched, whether new IDs are assigned, or what the caller receives back. For a graph-mutating tool with zero annotation coverage that is a substantial gap.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the scope qualifiers come immediately after the verb. It is efficient, though its brevity contributes to the missing behavioral detail rather than being merely 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?

For a six-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition is too thin: depth of cloning, side effects on the source, and the return value (presumably the new node ID) are all unaddressed. The operationId retry hint lives only in the schema, so the description itself is incomplete relative to the tool's complexity.

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 coverage is 50%: nodeId, operationId and parentNodeId are documented in the schema, while x, y and name have no descriptions. The description partially compensates by explaining the parent and position parameters ('другого родителя и на новую позицию'), but it says nothing about the optional rename ('name') or about x/y coordinates specifically, so half the undocumented parameters remain unexplained.

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 and resource ("клонирует ноду") plus the two optional dimensions of the clone (target parent and new position). That is enough to tell it apart from move_node and create_instance on their names alone, though it never names or contrasts those siblings explicitly.

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 when-to-use guidance: nothing says when to clone versus move_node (which also relocates a node) or create_instance (which also creates a node in a parent). The phrase "опционально в другого родителя" implies a move-like use case but offers no rule for choosing between the two tools.

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