duplicate_node

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

Adds real behavior beyond the annotations: atomic save, two explicit refusal conditions (instance contents, uncertain references), and the optimistic-concurrency guard expectedHash. It does not say what happens if a sibling with newName already exists — collision handling is unstated — which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and destination, then failure modes, then optional controls. No filler; every clause carries information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the description covers atomicity, refusal preconditions, and dry-run/hash safety. The remaining gap is collision/overwrite behavior on the new sibling name, which an agent performing a mutation would want to know.

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 only 17%, with just nodePath documented, so the description has to compensate. It names dryRun, newName, and expectedHash, but gives no semantics for expectedHash (what hash, sourced where) or for projectPath/scenePath, so the compensation is partial.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Duplicate a local subtree') plus the destination ('as a sibling') and the naming input ('newName'). It is clearly distinct from add_node or instance_scene thanks to the 'local subtree' scope and the refusal of instance contents, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

'Refuses instance contents and uncertain references' gives implicit when-not conditions, which helps the agent avoid misusing it. But it never names an alternative (e.g. instance_scene) or states when duplication is preferred over add_node, so routing is left to inference.

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