Copy Layout

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

Annotations only provide destructiveHint=false, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses meaningful failure semantics: `skipped` names unclonable DXF types and should be checked instead of trusting `ok`, and `associativity_dropped` counts hatch boundaries that were cleared because they referenced outside objects. This goes far beyond a simple 'copy' declaration.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence gives the core purpose, followed by two sentences that explain critical caveats. No redundant or filler content exists; every sentence earns its place.

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 description fully covers what is copied, what could fail, and the meaning of the return fields (`skipped`, `ok`, `associativity_dropped`). There is no output schema, so this return-value disclosure is essential. For a copy tool with these edge cases, nothing an agent needs to know to use it correctly is missing.

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?

Both parameters already have descriptive schema text: 'source' explains it is a layout tab and warns 'never Model', and 'new_name' states its purpose. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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'), a specific resource ('paper-space layout'), and enumerates the exact content copied: 'page setup, plot settings and all geometry'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like layout_create, layout_rename, and layout_delete, which perform different operations.

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 purpose implies when to use it — when an agent needs a duplicate of an existing layout — but the description does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion conditions. It relies on the sibling names and the user's inference rather than providing direct routing guidance.

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