duplicate_material_expression

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

The description notably discloses that connections are NOT copied, which is a critical behavioral detail not obvious from the name. With no annotations, this is helpful. However, it does not mention other potential side effects, permissions, or whether the material needs recompilation. Overall adequate but not exhaustive.

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 two sentences with zero wasted words. The first sentence states the purpose, the second provides return value and a key caveat (no connections). Highly efficient.

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?

The description covers the essentials: duplication, offset, return value, and connection behavior. However, it does not address prerequisites (e.g., node must exist), usage context among many sibling tools, or any output schema details (though output schema exists but not provided). Adequate but not fully complete for an unfamiliar user.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It explains that the original node is offset (implying offset_x and offset_y), but does not describe material_path or node_index explicitly. The term 'offset from original' gives context for offset parameters, but leaves the other two parameters ambiguous. More detail would improve usability.

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 it duplicates a node with same type and properties and offset. It distinguishes from other tools like add_material_expression (which adds from scratch) and move_material_expression (which moves). However, it could be more explicit about when to use this versus siblings, and the term 'node' is slightly ambiguous without context of material expressions.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like add_material_expression. The description does not mention prerequisites (e.g., material must be loaded) or context (e.g., only works on material graph nodes).

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