clone_node

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

With no annotations available, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic action, omitting details like whether children are copied, if the clone gets a new ID, or any side effects.

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 that conveys the core purpose without any wasteful words. It is appropriately concise for a simple tool.

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 simple clone operation with only three parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks information about return values or default behavior (e.g., what happens if x/y are omitted), which would make it more complete.

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 100%, so parameters are already fully documented. The description adds no additional parameter-level context beyond what the schema provides, earning the baseline score.

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 uses a specific verb 'Clone' with the resource 'an existing node in Figma', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like move_node or resize_node. There is no ambiguity about the tool's primary action.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as create_rectangle or create_component_instance. No exclusions or preferred contexts are mentioned.

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