photoshop_duplicate_layer

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose useful behavioral facts: the duplicate becomes the active layer orientation gives the layer name and id when available. Yet it omits other relevant traits, such as where the duplicate is placed, what happens if there is no active layer, or whether the operation is undoable. The disclosed info is valuable but not comprehensive.

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?

One sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core action ('Duplicate the active layer') and then adds the two most important consequences (new active layer, return value). Every clause 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?

For a simple single-action tool, the description covers the key postcondition (duplicate becomes active), return value, and the one parameter that affects naming. It does not mention edge cases or error behavior, but the absence is not crippling given the tool's simplicity and the fully descriptive schema. Slightly incomplete because no output schema exists, so the described return info is the only guide the agent gets.

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% — both newName and document_id are already documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail, but since the schema fully explains the parameters, a baseline score 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 ('Duplicate') and a specific resource ('the active layer'), which clearly distinguishes this tool from all 100+ siblings. No other sibling duplicates a layer; the closest alternatives (create_smart_object_via_copy, create_layer) are conceptually different, so an agent can tell them apart immediately.

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 intended use is implied: call this when you need a duplicate of the active layer in the current document. However, the description does not state when not to use it, mention alternatives (e.g., smart object via copy), or give any disambiguating context. It is adequate but relies on the agent to infer the scenario.

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