duplicate_layer

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral value by specifying that cels are included and the new layer is placed on top, but says nothing about whether the original is untouched, naming, or what identifies the new layer afterwards.

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 short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and the key behavioral caveat (cels included, placed on top). No filler.

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?

With two undocumented required parameters and no output schema, the description should at least clarify how the layer is addressed and what is returned. It omits both, leaving the agent to guess at identification semantics for a tool that creates a new object.

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%, so the description carries the full burden and fails it: neither 'filename' (which sprite file?) nor 'layer' (name, index, or id?) is explained. Both are required, so ambiguity in 'layer' is a genuine invocation risk.

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 (duplicate) and resource (layer), plus a meaningful detail: cels are copied and the copy lands on top. This distinguishes it from add_layer (empty layer) and duplicate_frame (frame-level sibling). It does not explicitly name a sibling, so it stops short of 5.

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?

No when-to-use context, no prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives such as add_layer or copy_cel when only part of the layer is wanted. The agent must infer that this is for whole-layer copies from the name alone.

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