clone_layer

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the description carries the real behavioral burden and does it well: it discloses that instances are live-linked so source edits propagate, that count refers to NEW copies, and that offsets cascade per copy. It omits concurrency behavior (expectedRevision conflict handling) and idempotency (requestId), which matter for a mutation of this shape.

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?

Three tight clauses that each carry distinct information: the action, the mode distinction, and the count/offset cascade. Front-loaded and free of restated name/title 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?

For a mutation tool with no output schema, an agent still cannot tell what comes back (new layer ids? the cloned layer objects?) or how expectedRevision behaves on a stale revision. The core cloning semantics are well covered, but these gaps leave it short of fully self-sufficient.

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?

At 63% schema coverage the description compensates for the most important params: it explains the copy/instance enum consequence in terms the schema does not, and clarifies that each successive copy is offset from the last (the schema only says "per-copy offset"). It says nothing about requestId, sessionId, or expectedRevision, which lack schema descriptions entirely.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ("Duplicate a layer") and immediately qualifies the two operating modes. It never names a sibling (e.g., array_layer or add_layer) as the alternative, so sibling differentiation is left to inference, but within the tool the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

It gives a clear rule for choosing between the tool's own modes (copy = independent, instance = live-linked), which is genuine when-to-use guidance at the parameter level. There is no guidance on when to call clone_layer instead of array_layer, add_layer, or group_layers, and no prerequisites or exclusions.

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