duplicate_node

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a mutation that is not destructive. The description adds no additional behavioral context (e.g., whether children are duplicated, whether scene must be loaded). It does not contradict annotations.

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, focused sentence that is front-loaded with the primary action. No wasted words.

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 tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core behavior but leaves gaps: no mention of whether child nodes are duplicated, what happens to connections, or any return value. The schema handles param details, but behavioral expectations are incomplete.

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 100%, with every parameter having a description. The tool description adds slight context by noting optionality of newName and parentNodePath, but this is already inferable from the schema (those fields are not in required). 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 clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Duplicate') and resource ('node within a scene'), and distinguishes it from related sibling tools like reparent_node and rename_node by mentioning optional new name or parent.

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 implies when to use this tool (when duplicating a node), but it does not explicitly state when it should not be used or mention alternatives such as reparent_node or rename_node for related operations. Context is clear but not fully developed.

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