Copy Layer

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context that the layer is placed at the top of the target map and that a new layer identifier is returned, but it omits whether the source layer is left untouched, whether overwrite/duplicate handling exists, and any permission requirements.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the primary action plus return value come first. It is efficient, though the extreme brevity is arguably part of why the parameter and usage gaps exist.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the mutation/safety profile. However, for a 5-parameter cross-map mutation with 0% schema coverage, the description supplies no guidance on aprx_path, placement behavior, or failure conditions, leaving an agent under-informed to invoke it correctly.

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% across 5 parameters, so the description carries the full burden and largely fails: aprx_path and add_position are never mentioned, and source_map_name vs target_map_name are only implied. Worse, the description asserts the copy lands on the top layer, which sits awkwardly with the add_position parameter (default AUTO_ARRANGE) that evidently controls placement.

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?

States a specific verb (复制/copy), a resource (工程中现有图层) and the destination (另一地图的顶层), plus a return value (新图层标识). It is clear on its own, but it never distinguishes itself from close siblings such as arcgis_pro_move_layer or arcgis_pro_insert_layer, so an agent cannot route between them from the text alone.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus move_layer, insert_layer, or add_layer_from_path, and no prerequisites (e.g. map must exist, layer must not already be in the target). Usage can only be inferred from the word 'copy'.

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