duplicate_node

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

With no annotations, the description communicates the core behavior: it creates a duplicate of the node including its children, under the same parent, within the currently edited scene. It doesn't detail side effects like naming or the exact copy semantics, but for a simple duplication operation this is sufficient.

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, compact sentence that conveys the essential information without any extraneous detail.

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?

This is a simple tool with two parameters and no output schema or annotations. The description covers the high-level purpose but omits parameter semantics and any details about what the tool returns or how it affects the scene beyond duplication. It is minimally adequate but has clear gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meanings. It does not explain 'node_path' (the path of the node to duplicate) or 'name' (optional name for the duplicate). The description only vaguely refers to 'a node', leaving parameter usage unclear.

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 (duplicate), the target (a node), and the scope (with children under the same parent in the edited scene). This distinguishes it from siblings like add_node, delete_node, or move_node.

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?

Provides clear context for when to use the tool: duplicating a node and its children while keeping the same parent. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is unambiguous.

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