duplicate_node

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

Adds meaningful behavioral details beyond annotations: the operation is undoable, duplicates children recursively, and keeps the same parent. Annotations only indicate it is not read-only and not destructive, so this extra context is valuable for agent prediction.

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?

One efficient sentence with all key information: action, recursive behavior, parent placement, undoability, and optional name. No fluff, front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 essential behavior: same-parent duplication, children included, undoable, and optional naming. Minor gaps remain: no mention of default naming if 'name' is omitted, and no return value info, but these are not critical for a straightforward duplication operation.

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 zero schema description coverage, the description clarifies both parameters: 'name' is the optional copy name, and 'target' is the node to duplicate (implied by 'Duplicate a node'). While target format is not explicit, the meaning is clear enough for a two-parameter tool.

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 states a specific verb ('Duplicate') and resource ('a node (with its children) under the same parent'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like create_node (new node), move_node, and reparent_node by specifying same-parent duplication and child inheritance.

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 usage context: use this tool when you need to copy an existing node and its subtree in the same location. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer from sibling names.

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