Duplicate a node with all its children, assigning fresh IDs and placing the copy right after the original—ideal for repeating design elements like cards.
Copy a node and everything under it, under fresh ids, right after the original. The move a designer makes constantly — build one card, duplicate it twice.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| dry_run | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate this is not read-only and not destructive. The description adds useful behavior beyond that: the copy gets fresh ids, includes the full subtree, and is placed immediately after the original. It does not disclose return values or side effects, but the core behavioral profile is clear.
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?
Two short sentences: the first is technically precise and front-loaded, the second adds a relatable use case. The second sentence is somewhat stylistic but not bloated; no essential structural 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 tool with no output schema and an undocumented parameter, the description is not complete. It leaves 'dry_run' undefined, and since there is no output schema, the agent is not told what the tool returns. The common happy path is inferable, but edge usage is under-specified.
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 both parameters. It implies that 'id' identifies the node to copy, but it never explains the 'dry_run' parameter or how it affects the operation. An agent cannot fully understand parameter semantics from this definition.
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 ('Copy'), the exact resource ('a node and everything under it'), and key behavioral details ('under fresh ids, right after the original'). This clearly distinguishes duplication from siblings like sb_move or sb_remove without needing to open the schema.
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 gives a concrete designer use case ('build one card, duplicate it twice'), which implies when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or contrast it with alternatives like sb_move or sb_add, so the agent must infer the appropriate context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.