krita_copy_layer

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

Beyond the annotations, it reveals the lack of a guaranteed undo transaction, the new node handle return, and the operation_id deduplication mechanism. It does not specify the destructive consequence hinted by destructiveHint, such as overwrite behavior on name conflict, so it does not fully explain the destruction risk.

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?

Four short sentences, each carrying distinct information: action, placement semantics, return value, and undo/idempotency caveats. The core action is front-loaded and no filler is present.

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 with eight parameters, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description covers the operation's essential behavior, placement rules, return value, and side-effect caveat. It is still slightly incomplete about the name parameter and explicit source/destination parameter mapping, but an agent can infer these from the schema property names.

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?

The description adds meaning for parent_node_id, above_node_id, destination_document_id, and operation_id, which is valuable at 0% schema coverage. However, required parameters like name, document_id/node_id source identification, and instance_id are left unexplained, so the description only partially compensates for the empty schema descriptions.

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 ('Copy'), a constrained object ('a supported paint layer'), and an explicit target ('into an explicit destination document'). This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like move, merge, create, or read-only inspection tools.

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 useful placement conventions (parent/root, above_node_id) and idempotency advice, but it never names alternatives or states when to prefer copy over move or create. The usage intent is implied rather than explicitly contrasted with sibling operations.

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