duplicate_layer

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, and all it conveys is placement ('directly above the original'). It does not say what the duplicate is named, whether it becomes the active/selected layer, whether the source is the given `layer` or the current selection, or what happens if the layer does not exist. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 key outcome (placement above the original) is stated immediately. Nothing is wasted or redundant.

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?

The tool is conceptually simple and has no output schema to explain, so a short description is defensible. Nevertheless, with two undocumented optional parameters, no annotations, and no note about how the layer is identified or what the duplicate inherits, it falls short of what an agent needs to invoke it confidently.

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% for both parameters and the description never mentions `name` or `layer`. An agent must infer that `layer` selects the source (and how – by name? by identifier?) and that `name` names the copy, which is exactly the kind of ambiguity the description should resolve. The phrase 'the original' hints at a layer selector but adds no real semantics.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Duplicate a layer') plus the resulting placement ('directly above the original'), which distinguishes it from create_layer or arrange_layer without opening a schema. It does not explicitly name those siblings, 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?

Usage is strongly implied by the word 'duplicate' – use this instead of create_layer when you want a copy of an existing layer. However, there is no explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use statement, no mention of alternatives like create_layer or transform_layer, and no precondition such as an active layer being required.

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