map_duplicate_node

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility. It discloses that it copies properties and returns a new node id, but does not state whether the original is modified, whether connections are also cloned, or any side effects. 'Clone' implies non-destructive, but it is not explicit, and the mention of 'all its properties' could be overbroad.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the primary action ('Clone a node') and includes essential detail about what is copied and the return value. It is concise with no redundant or filler words.

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 core functionality and return value, but given the absence of annotations and output schema, it leaves some gaps: it does not clarify whether connections are included in the clone, does not mention that the original remains unchanged, and provides no guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives. These are notable omissions for a tool with no structured behavioral hints.

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 has 100% coverage for all four parameters (id, name, offset_x, offset_y) with clear descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 ('Clone') and resource ('a node'), and explicitly lists the cloned properties (ports, services, domains, etc.), making it clear what the tool does. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like map_add_node or map_update_node.

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 when to use this tool (when you need to duplicate a node with all its properties) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. There are no references to other map_* tools, so the guidance is only implied.

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