Krita Duplicate Layer

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses two important behavioral traits: the clone lands directly above the source and becomes active. This goes beyond the schema and helps the agent predict the document state after the call. It does not mention whether the new layer is selected or whether undo is possible, but the disclosed placement/activation behavior is meaningful.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the core action and scope, followed by the two most important behavioral outcomes. Every word earns its place; no filler or repetition of schema fields.

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 simple two-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential behavior: what is duplicated, where the clone goes, and that it becomes active. It doesn't explain return values, but the output schema exists and the description needn't repeat them. It could mention whether the original layer remains unchanged, but that is implied by 'duplicate'. Overall, complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 the purpose of the operation but does not explain the 'name' parameter (which layer to duplicate) or 'new_name' (what to call the clone). The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds no detail about required vs optional semantics or naming rules. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema is minimal and the description doesn't enrich parameter understanding.

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 states a specific verb ('Duplicate'), a specific resource ('a layer'), and the key scope ('with its full pixel content'). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling krita_remove_layer and krita_create_layer by clarifying that the clone lands directly above the source and becomes active. This is clear and unambiguous.

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 this tool: when you need a copy of a layer with its pixels intact, placed above the source. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives (e.g., krita_create_layer for blank layers, krita_merge_layer_down for combining). The context is clear but exclusions are absent.

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