penpot_clone_shapes

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

With no annotations, the description covers key behaviors: fresh IDs, optional offset (dx/dy), reparenting (parentId/frameId), and carrying over component/variant tags. It lacks information on error handling (e.g., non-existent shapeIds) or performance considerations, but adequately discloses the core behavioral traits.

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 dense paragraph containing multiple sentences. While it front-loads the main purpose, the structure could be improved with clearer separation of details (e.g., bullet points for optional parameters). It is moderately concise but could be more reader-friendly.

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 description covers the core functionality and key optional behaviors, but leaves gaps: no mention of error scenarios, success confirmation, or idempotency. Given the lack of output schema and annotations, a more complete description would include these aspects.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It describes dx/dy, parentId/frameId, and shapeIds in context, but does not explicitly define fileId and pageId beyond their required status. The explanation is functional but could be more systematic for each parameter.

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 it duplicates shapes with fresh IDs, using the verb 'duplicate' and specifying the resource 'shapes on a page'. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool penpot_add_component_instance, which creates linked component instances.

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 explicitly contrasts this tool with penpot_add_component_instance, guiding when to use plain duplication vs. component instances. However, it does not mention other alternatives like penpot_add_shapes for creating new shapes, leaving some usage scenarios implicit.

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