Conduit

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions that the tool clones nodes and returns new node IDs, which indicates a write operation. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or whether cloning preserves node properties. The description adds some value but does not fully compensate for the absence of 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 concise and well-structured, with two sentences: one explaining the tool's function and parameters, and another detailing the return format. It avoids unnecessary details and is front-loaded with the core purpose. However, the return description could be slightly more integrated into the main flow.

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 the tool's complexity (cloning with optional configurations) and the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic operation and return format but lacks deeper context such as error cases, performance implications, or examples. It meets minimum viability but has clear gaps in behavioral and usage details.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal semantics by noting the tool accepts 'either a single node config (via 'node') or an array of configs (via 'nodes')' and mentions optional positions, offsets, and parent, but this mostly reiterates schema information. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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: 'Clones one or more nodes in Figma.' It specifies the verb ('clones') and resource ('nodes in Figma'), making the action unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'duplicate_page' or 'copy_node' (if present), which slightly reduces clarity.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions the tool accepts single or batch configurations but does not specify scenarios for choosing between 'node' and 'nodes' parameters or when cloning is preferred over other operations like 'create_frame' or 'copy_node'. This lack of context leaves usage unclear.

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