ae_duplicate_layer

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior, but it only restates the core operation. It does not mention whether the duplicate preserves effects, expressions, or keyframes, where the copy is inserted, or whether any existing selection changes. This is a meaningful gap for a mutation tool.

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, efficient sentence with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the optional parameter behavior is attached logically.

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 operation, the description plus schema is minimally adequate. However, there is no output schema and no mention of how to identify the target layer beyond the schema's own field descriptions, and no explanation of what happens if neither layer_name nor layer_index is provided. This leaves some ambiguity for an agent deciding how to invoke the tool 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 80%, so most parameters are already documented. The description adds minor value by clarifying that new_name is used to rename the copied layer. However, it does not clarify the relationship between comp_name/comp_index or layer_name/layer_index beyond what the schema already states.

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 ('Duplicate') and resource ('layer'), with a clear optional outcome ('optionally rename the copy'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like ae_create_layer or ae_delete_layer 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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any mention of when it would be more appropriate to use ae_create_layer or other layer-management tools. The optional-rename note hints at one use case, but it does not provide practical selection criteria.

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