figma_clone_node

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully states that 'the clone is placed at a slight offset from the original,' which is behavior beyond the input schema, but omits permissions, reversibility, whether the original is preserved, and what the tool returns.

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 short sentences with the core action front-loaded and the offset behavior immediately following. Every sentence adds useful information without waste.

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?

For a one-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it does not state where the clone is parented, whether the original remains unchanged, or what the tool returns, leaving some gaps for the agent.

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 has 100% description coverage for the single nodeId parameter, so the schema already documents the parameter fully. The description does not add further meaning or constraints beyond that baseline.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Duplicate a node.' This is clearly distinct from deletion or creation tools, though it does not explicitly differentiate from another duplication-oriented sibling such as figma_duplicate_slide.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like figma_create_child or figma_duplicate_slide. It relies on the user inferring that duplication is the intended operation.

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