Duplicate an existing layer and add the copy to the canvas by providing the layer ID. Use it to replicate design elements for editing or reuse.
Duplicates an existing layer and adds the copy to the canvas.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| layerId | Yes | Layer ID to duplicate |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.7Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. Stating that the copy lands on the canvas is useful, but it is silent on the duplicate's name, placement, selection state, whether layer properties/styles are copied, and what the call returns for chaining further edits.
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 short sentence with the action front-loaded and the outcome trailing it. No filler, though it is too terse to earn a 5 on structure.
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 one-parameter action this is minimally adequate, but with no output schema the description should say what comes back (e.g., the new layer's ID) since that determines whether the agent can act on the duplicate afterwards.
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% for the single layerId parameter, so the schema fully documents it. The description adds no format, ID-source, or constraint detail beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline for a fully documented param.
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?
Clear verb ('duplicates') plus resource ('layer') with the outcome stated (copy added to canvas). It is distinguishable from pages_duplicate by the word 'layer', though the description never acknowledges that near-identical sibling, so it falls 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?
No guidance on when to duplicate versus pages_duplicate, canvas_create_new, or element_add_stock, and no prerequisites stated. Usage is only implied by the verb; the agent must infer the context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.