cavalry_duplicate_layer

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for disclosing behavioral traits. It does not explain what happens to the duplicate's properties, naming, position, or whether it is a deep copy. It also does not state whether the tool returns the new layer's ID or modifies the scene state beyond duplicating. This is a significant gap for a mutation-style 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. It immediately states the action and object, achieving maximum conciseness while remaining clear.

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 simple with one well-documented parameter, but it lacks annotations and an output schema. The description does not explain the return value (if any) or the side effects on the scene, which are important for an agent to use the tool correctly. It is minimally viable but has clear gaps in completeness.

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?

The schema covers 100% of the single parameter (layerId) with a clear description. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate. No further semantic enrichment is needed given the parameter is fully documented in the input schema.

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 'Duplicate a layer in the scene' uses a specific verb (Duplicate) and a clear resource (a layer), making the purpose immediately obvious. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'delete_layers' or 'create_layer' by specifying the duplication action.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions. The description is a single statement of functionality without contextual usage advice. An agent receives no help in deciding whether duplication is appropriate over other layer operations.

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