Ase Duplicate Layer

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does well: it states that the copy is independent (deep copy of cels), that opacity and blend mode are included, that the copy lands directly above the source, and that the default name follows a suffix pattern. It doesn't mention potential edge cases like overwrite behavior, but the key side effects are disclosed.

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 deliver the core action, the copied attributes, the placement, and the default naming convention. There is no filler, and the most important information is front-loaded. Every clause 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 tool with an output schema and modest complexity, the description is nearly complete: it clarifies what gets duplicated and how the result is positioned/named. It does not mention whether group layers or layer masks are included, but given the simple parameter set and the presence of an output schema, this is not a critical omission.

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 explains new_name's default behavior ('source name plus a copy suffix'), which adds value. However, sprite_path and layer_name are not explicitly defined; they are only implied by the context of the description. The description partially compensates for the lack of schema documentation but not completely.

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 the specific verb 'Duplicate a layer', identifying both the action and the resource. It extends the purpose by specifying what is duplicated (all cels independently, opacity, blend mode) and the placement/name behavior, which clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like ase_add_layer, ase_delete_layer, and ase_rename_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?

The description implies when to use the tool—when a full independent copy of a layer is needed—but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. An agent would infer the use case from the verb 'duplicate', but there is no direct guidance such as 'use instead of ase_add_layer for copying existing content'.

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