neurover_node_duplicate

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description's 'Меняет полотно' (modifies the canvas) is consistent but adds only the gating policy on top. It does not say where the duplicate is placed, whether node settings/connections are copied, or what the response contains — with openWorldHint=true that leaves real behavioral gaps.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the safety constraint, then the alternative. Nothing is padded and no sentence repeats the tool name.

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 routing guidance is complete and the mutation is disclosed, but for a 3-parameter write operation with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the definition leaves the parameters and the result of the duplication unspecified. Adequate to select the tool, thin for invoking it confidently.

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 schema documents nothing about workflowId, nodeId, or the optional account parameter, and the description does not compensate at all — no parameter is even named. An agent must guess whether account is required for multi-account setups and how nodeId relates to the 'tile' being duplicated.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Дублировать плитку' (duplicate a tile), and explicitly names the sibling tool this is not for normal generation (prepare_generation). The only friction is terminology: the tool name says 'node_duplicate' while the description says 'плитка' (tile), which an agent must infer are the same object.

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?

It gives an explicit precondition for calling ('only on a direct user request about tiles or the canvas') and names the correct alternative plus its access path for the common case ('prepare_generation (via canvas chat)'). This is exactly the when/when-not/alternative structure that prevents misrouting.

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