Create an exact copy of a selected or named GIMP layer and place it directly above the original for edits, comparisons, or variations.
Duplicate a layer and insert the copy above it.
Parameters:
layer_name: Name of the layer to duplicate; defaults to active layer
image_index: Target image index (default 0)
Returns: {layer_name, layer_id}
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| layer_name | No | ||
| image_index | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It helpfully states that the copy is inserted above the original and what fields are returned, but it does not describe whether the original remains unchanged, which layer properties are copied, or what happens if the layer is not found.
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 short and front-loaded with the core operation. The parameter list and return fields are structured efficiently, with no unnecessary wording.
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 two-parameter duplication tool, the description covers purpose, parameter defaults, insertion behavior, and return values. It is missing explicit sibling-tool routing and error-case behavior, but otherwise gives enough context 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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does document both parameters with defaults. It clarifies that layer_name defaults to the active layer and that image_index targets an image and defaults to 0. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema.
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 and resource: duplicate a layer. It also adds the useful positional behavior that the copy is inserted above the original. It does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools such as create_layer or import_layer, so it stops short of a 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?
There is no explicit guidance on when to use duplicate_layer versus create_layer, import_layer, or other layer-creation tools. The description only states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context and any exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.