duplicate_layer

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It implies mutation (a copy is added to the map) but does not say whether the new layer lands in the table of contents, whether the original is untouched, what the copy is named if new_name is omitted, or whether the operation is reversible - all material for a write tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 sentence with no padding, and the purpose ('copy a layer within the map') is front-loaded ahead of the rationale. Nothing to trim.

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 no explanation, and the schema fully documents the three parameters. The remaining gap is behavioural detail about the resulting duplicate (position in the TOC, default name), which for a simple duplication tool is a minor omission.

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 map_name, new_name, and layer_name are already documented in the schema, including the default-to-active-map behaviour. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Copy a layer') plus scope ('within the map'), so an agent immediately knows this duplicates a layer rather than editing it. It does not contrast itself with siblings that also change how a layer is drawn, notably apply_symbology_from_layer or set_layer_renderer, which is the main ambiguity a caller faces.

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 clause 'so it can be symbolised differently' implies the intended use case - you want two visual representations of the same data - but never states when to prefer duplication over apply_symbology_from_layer or set_layer_renderer, and gives no prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.

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