clone_node

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses important behavioral details: x/y default to parent-relative, positionMode 'frame' converts absolute canvas coordinates to parent local space, and the response returns both parent-relative and absolute bounding box positions. This goes beyond a simple tautological description, though it does not mention potential side effects (e.g., whether the clone is selected).

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 two sentences and front-loaded with the core action. It explains the default behavior and the alternative mode in a clear, efficient manner without wasted words. Every sentence adds value.

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 tool has no output schema, but the description states what the response returns (parent-relative position and absolute bounding box), partially filling that gap. It explains the coordinate systems and positionMode, covering the main behavioral complexity. It does not discuss error cases or prerequisites (e.g., existence of the node), but the description is otherwise complete for a moderate-complexity clone 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds context about the coordinate interpretation (parent-relative vs. frame) but this is largely redundant with the parameter descriptions. No new syntax or format details beyond the schema are provided.

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 'Clone an existing node in Figma' — a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from sibling creation tools (create_rectangle, create_frame, etc.) by focusing on cloning an existing node, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 when you want to clone a node and explains coordinate behavior, but it does not explicitly compare with alternatives or state when not to use this tool. There are no exclusions or 'instead of' guidance, so the usage context is only implicit.

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