clone_node

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

Annotations already indicate a mutating (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false) operation. The description adds valuable behavioral details: copy placement ('sibling right after the original'), deep copy ('full subtree'), instance preservation, and the return payload. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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?

Two well-structured sentences: the first states the core action and placement, the second covers the instance nuance and alternative, and the third (short) gives the return shape. Every clause adds value, with zero redundancy.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description fully discloses the return format. It explains the scope (subtree), placement, behavior for component instances, and the alternative tool. For a single-parameter mutation tool, this is complete and self-sufficient.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage for the sole parameter with 'Node id to clone'. The description adds no extra parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema states, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage. The behavioral context (placement and subtree) indirectly clarifies the parameter's effect but doesn't add new syntax or format details.

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 uses a specific verb 'Duplicate' and identifies the resource ('a node') with the explicit scope of 'including its full subtree'. It clearly differentiates from sibling tool create_instance by noting that cloning a component instance keeps it an instance, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 explicitly contrasts with create_instance: 'to make a fresh instance of a component use create_instance instead'. It also clarifies when to use this tool (when duplicating a node with its subtree) and the behavior for component instances, providing clear selection guidance.

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