Duplicar capa

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It states that toDocument allows cross-document duplication, but says nothing about permissions, stacking position of the copy, whether the source is altered, or mutation semantics for a write operation.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler; the core action and its main modifiers come first. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly under-specification rather than pure conciseness.

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 an 11-parameter mutation tool with nested objects, no annotations and no output schema, this one-sentence description is too thin. It omits behavior, defaults, and most parameter meaning that the agent needs to invoke it 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 coverage is only 36%, so the description should compensate for undocumented parameters. It mentions name, offset/position and toDocument, but leaves blend, opacity, fill, anchor, doc and x/y unexplained, covering well under half the 11-parameter surface.

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?

Names a specific verb (duplica) and resource (capa), and goes beyond a bare restatement by stating it can target the same or another document via toDocument and can apply new name/offset/position. It does not name a sibling (e.g. ps_create_layer) to differentiate, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no alternative named, and no exclusion. The agent must infer from the verb alone that this is the copy-layer path versus ps_create_layer, with nothing in the text routing it.

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