Clone Node

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only restates the basic operation and does not disclose critical behaviors such as whether child nodes are recursively cloned, whether the new node gets a new ID, or what happens if parentId is invalid. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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, clearly structured sentence that front-loads the core action ('Duplicate a node') and uses no 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?

With no annotations or output schema, the description should offer more behavioral context. It omits important details like the scope of the duplication (children/properties) and the return value, making it only minimally sufficient for a 2-parameter mutation tool.

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 schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The tool description's mention of 'optionally reparenting' adds no information beyond the parentId parameter's description, and neither describes edge cases or value formats.

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 the specific verb 'duplicate' with the resource 'node' and adds the optional reparenting behavior, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like reparent_node (which changes parent of an existing node) and duplicate_slide (which targets slides).

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 for copying nodes, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over create_node, reparent_node, or other alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. The 'optionally reparenting' clause hints at a use case but provides no explicit guidance.

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