duplicate_node

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the mutation/safety profile is partly covered. The description adds a genuinely useful behavioral detail not in the annotations: the copy defaults to an 80-pixel offset. It does not disclose whether the duplicate shares the source's parameters or material, which is the key ambiguity for a duplicate op.

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 padding; the offset default is the one fact it chooses to surface. It is efficient but arguably too terse given the surrounding schema gaps.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, for a mutation tool with zero schema parameter documentation, the description omits what 'node' accepts, what material_id does, and whether the copy inherits source properties—material gaps for correct invocation.

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 0% across three parameters, so the description must carry the burden and largely does not. Only the position default (80-pixel offset) is explained; 'node' and 'material_id' are left entirely undefined, including whether material_id defaults to the source's material.

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 ('Duplicate one node'), which is clearer than a bare name restatement. It does not, however, distinguish itself from adjacent siblings like add_node or move_node, so an agent must infer that it operates on an already-existing 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?

There is no guidance on when to duplicate versus creating a node with add_node, nor on prerequisites such as whether the node must exist in an open material. The only conditional hint is the default offset, which is behavioral rather than usage-routing.

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