clone_node

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description is consistent. The description adds return value details ({ ok, nodeId, name, type }) but does not disclose potential side effects like property inheritance or recalculation. It adds some value beyond 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, front-loaded sentence plus a return signature. Every word is functional, with no redundancy. It is optimally concise.

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 simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, basic annotations), the description adequately covers the action and return. It does not mention error conditions or full property copying, but for a straightforward clone operation, it is nearly complete.

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%, so the description need not compensate. The description repeats the parameter's purpose ('nodeId' to clone) but does not add new constraints or examples. Baseline 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 action ('Duplicate a node next to the original (same parent)'), which is specific and action-oriented. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from other creation tools like create_instance or create_frame, so it lacks sibling differentiation.

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 the tool is used to duplicate a node, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., when you need a copy rather than a new instance or a new shape). The context is assumed from the tool name.

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