photoshop_duplicate_layer

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden and falls short. It doesn't state whether a document must be open, what happens if the named layer doesn't exist, whether the duplicate is placed above the original, or whether the source layer is left untouched.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the key scope ('or active layer') is parenthetical rather than buried. It is arguably under-specified, but that is a completeness problem rather than a conciseness one.

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 needn't be described, but with zero annotation coverage, two undocumented parameters, and no failure or prerequisite information, the description leaves too much for the agent to infer before calling.

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 disambiguate the two parameters — but it only covers 'new_name' via 'optional new name' and never explains what 'name' selects. An agent cannot tell from this text whether 'name' is the source layer or an alternate naming field.

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?

Specific verb ('duplicate') plus resource ('layer'), with the default target clarified as the active layer. It is distinguishable from create_layer or merge_visible_layers, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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 when-to-use guidance and no comparison to the obvious alternatives (create_layer, select_layer_by_name). The parenthetical '(or active layer)' implies a default target but doesn't say when to pass a name instead.

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