gns3_duplicate_node

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers limited behavioral insight. It states the duplicate will have 'the same configuration' and be placed at an offset, but doesn't disclose whether this is a destructive operation, what permissions are needed, whether the original node remains unchanged, or what happens to node connections/links. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 extremely concise - just two sentences with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and follows with placement detail. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information about what the tool does and how positioning works.

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 7 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, but with an output schema present (which reduces need to describe return values), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the core action and placement but lacks details about authentication, project context, error conditions, or relationship to other nodes/links. For a node duplication operation in a network simulation context, more guidance would be helpful.

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%, so the description must compensate but adds minimal parameter context. It mentions 'specified offset' which relates to 'x' and 'y' parameters, but doesn't explain the 7 parameters overall. Critical parameters like 'project_id' and 'node_id' (the two required ones) get no explanation, nor do authentication parameters ('username', 'password') or 'server_url'. The description doesn't adequately compensate for the schema gap.

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 purpose: 'Duplicate a node with the same configuration' - this is a specific verb (duplicate) and resource (node). It distinguishes from siblings like 'gns3_add_node' (create new) and 'gns3_update_node' (modify existing), but doesn't explicitly contrast with 'gns3_duplicate_project' which duplicates entire projects.

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 minimal guidance: 'The duplicate will be placed at the specified offset from the original' implies usage for spatial positioning. However, it doesn't explain when to use this vs. alternatives like 'gns3_add_node' for creating new nodes from scratch, or 'gns3_duplicate_project' for broader duplication. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

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