duplicate_layerCopies an After Effects layer directly above the original, with optional count for multiple copies and offset_seconds to stagger each copy later in time.
Duplicate a layer (the copy sits above the original). count makes several copies; offset_seconds shifts copy N later in time by N * offset_seconds.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | ||
| count | No | ||
| layer_id | Yes | ||
| offset_seconds | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.22.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations mark it as mutating (readOnlyHint=false) but non-destructive and non-idempotent; the description goes beyond that by disclosing the resulting placement (copy above original) and the multiplicative behavior of count and offset_seconds. It does not mention permissions or the returned identifier, but it meaningfully enriches the annotated profile.
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?
Two sentences, no waste: purpose and placement lead, parameter semantics follow. Everything is front-loaded and earns its place.
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 and 0% schema coverage, the description covers purpose, placement, and the two non-obvious parameters. Gaps remain around the default for name and any return value, but the core call-correctness information is present.
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. It clearly defines count ('makes several copies') and the tricky offset_seconds ('shifts copy N later in time by N * offset_seconds'); layer_id is self-evident but name remains unexplained.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Duplicate a layer') and adds the placement outcome ('the copy sits above the original'). This is unambiguous against siblings like add_layer, precompose, or copy_animation, which produce different results.
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 never says when to use this tool versus alternatives such as add_layer or precompose, nor does it state prerequisites. The parameter explanations imply how to use it, but there is no when-to-use or when-not guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.