editor_duplicate_node

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that duplication includes children, scripts, and signals, but it does not mention whether the duplicate is placed as a sibling, how the name parameter defaults or conflicts are handled, or whether external signal connections are preserved. Mutation-relevant details are missing.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It delivers the core information efficiently.

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 tool is simple (2 params, no output schema), but the description leaves important gaps: it does not mention what the tool returns, where the duplicate is created, or whether a scene must be open. It is minimally adequate but could be more helpful.

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 descriptions cover both parameters 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond the schema—it only implies that the path refers to a node with children/scripts/signals, but does not explain naming behavior or how the name parameter is used when omitted.

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 a node and specifies the scope (children, scripts, signals), which is specific and helpful. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like clone_node or editor_duplicate_asset, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as clone_node, duplicate_scene, or editor_duplicate_asset. It lacks exclusions, prerequisites, or context about when it is appropriate.

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