copy_cel

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

The description implies a non-destructive copy, but does not disclose whether the target frame's existing pixels are overwritten or merged. No annotations are provided to clarify safety, so the description should have addressed behavioral traits like overwriting behavior.

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 a single, clear sentence with no redundant words. It is appropriately front-loaded and to the point.

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 no output schema and four parameters, the description leaves significant gaps: it does not explain return behavior, whether the operation is reversible, or the impact on other layers. For a mutation tool, more completeness is needed.

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 50%, and the description adds context for 'from_frame' and 'to_frame' by mentioning them, but does not provide constraints or format details. It confirms the role of the 'layer' parameter. Baseline is 3, and the description adds minimal extra value.

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 the action ('Copy') and the resource ('one layer's pixels from one frame to another'). It distinguishes the tool from siblings like 'copy_region' and frame manipulation tools, though it could be slightly more specific about the layer being the active or specified layer.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'copy_region' or 'paste_stamp'. The description does not mention prerequisites or context, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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