design_duplicate_layer

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose the placement behavior ('inserted directly above the source') and that a new ID is assigned. It does not say whether the clone copies masks, effects, style, or child layers, nor what happens on failure (missing layerId/sketch), which are meaningful gaps for a mutation tool.

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?

A single compact clause with zero filler; the key behavior (new ID, insertion position) is front-loaded immediately after the verb.

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?

A mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, so the description should do more: notably whether the returned value includes the new layer's ID (an agent likely needs it to chain further calls) and which layer properties are duplicated. The core action is covered, but these operational details are missing.

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 100% for both parameters, so the schema already explains layerId and sketchId including the default. The description adds only indirect meaning ('above the source'), which is a slight but real addition; baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 names a specific verb ('Clone') and resource ('design layer') and adds the concrete outcome: a new ID, inserted directly above the source. This clearly distinguishes it from design_add_layer and design_update_layer in the sibling list, though it doesn't name 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?

Usage is implied by the word 'Clone' – an agent can infer you call this when you want a copy of an existing layer rather than a fresh one. But there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or comparison against design_add_layer, which is the obvious alternative.

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