Copy Layout

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

The description goes beyond the minimal annotations (destructiveHint=false) by disclosing important behavior: it re-points associative hatch boundaries and warns about `skipped` DXF types and `associativity_dropped`. It even advises checking `skipped` rather than trusting `ok`, which is valuable operational guidance.

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 concise and front-loaded: a one-sentence summary of function followed by a focused paragraph on critical caveats. No empty filler; every sentence adds value.

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?

Given the complexity of copying a layout with geometry and hatch associativity, the description covers the key edge cases and output fields. An output schema exists, so full return-value documentation is not required, but the description already highlights the non-obvious fields to watch for.

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 coverage is 100%, with each parameter already having a clear description. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 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 clearly states a specific verb and resource: 'Copy a paper-space layout' and enumerates the copied contents (page setup, plot settings, geometry). This distinguishes it from siblings like entity_copy or layout_create, which operate on different resources or create new layouts.

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 description implies the tool is for duplicating an existing paper-space layout, including all geometry. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is clear enough that an agent can infer this is the go-to tool for layout duplication.

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