Clone Node

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

The description discloses that the tool produces a new node id, indicating it creates a new entity. The openWorldHint annotation is present, and the description aligns with it by confirming the non-read-only nature. No destructive behavior is mentioned, but for a clone operation, the original remains unchanged; this is implicit. The description adds context beyond the annotation by specifying the output format.

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 efficiently conveys the action, optionality, and output. It is front-loaded with the verb and contains no redundant information. Every word serves a purpose.

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 four parameters all described in the schema, an output schema indicating the return structure, and an annotation for open-world behavior. The description covers the essential behavior and output. The existence of an output schema means the return values need not be detailed in the description. Thus the description is complete for the tool's complexity.

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?

All four parameters have full schema descriptions (100% coverage), so the tool description does not add new information about parameters. It merely reiterates the optionality of x/y positions. Since the schema already provides detailed descriptions, the description's contribution to parameter understanding is minimal.

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 verb 'Duplicate' and specifies the resource 'existing node', which clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like node_delete, node_rename, etc. The optional positioning and resulting new node id are mentioned, making the purpose unambiguous. No tautology or missing information.

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 clearly states what the tool does (duplicate an existing node) but does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or contrast with alternatives like create_* tools. However, the purpose is so specific that an agent would understand its context relative to other node operations. It could benefit from mentioning that this is for copying an existing node, not for creating a new one from scratch.

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