clone_node

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It only states 'Clone an existing node' without revealing whether the clone retains all properties, whether the original is modified, or what the output looks like. It does not mention side effects, permissions, or error states.

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, which is concise, but it is too minimal. It could include key details like 'including its properties and children' without being verbose. The front-loading is good, but it lacks substance.

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?

Given no annotations, 4 parameters, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the clone includes (e.g., size, fills), what happens to children, or how the x,y position relates to the original. The agent cannot reliably infer behavior from this alone.

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% description coverage, with each parameter having a clear description (e.g., 'The ID of the node to clone', 'New X position for the clone'). The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate. However, note that 'nodeName' is described as 'Name of the node to modify' which might imply renaming the original, not naming the clone; this slight ambiguity is not corrected by the tool description.

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 the action ('Clone') and the resource ('existing node in Figma'), which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'create_frame' or 'create_component' by using 'clone' instead of 'create', indicating duplication of an existing element. However, it does not specify the scope of cloning (e.g., all properties, children), so it's not a perfect 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_node_from_svg' or 'create_frame'. The description does not mention prerequisites (e.g., the node must exist) or when not to use it. No alternatives are listed.

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