duplicate_layer_tree

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: preservation of item order, clipping groups and child layer state, plus a disclosed refusal condition for duplicate targets. Auth requirements and document-side effects remain undocumented, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action and with no filler. The trailing coordinate/refusal notes are compact, though the coordinate remark is only loosely tied to the actual parameters.

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 mutating tool with no output schema and five parameters at 0% schema coverage, the description gives good preservation semantics but insufficient parameter documentation. An agent knows the intent yet lacks format guidance for the path and offset inputs.

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 carries the full burden and largely fails it. It vaguely gestures at the target parent and "native document coordinates in points," but leaves offset_x/offset_y, the document_path format, and the nested-array structure of source_layer_paths entirely unexplained.

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 uses a specific verb ("Copy") and resource ("a complete layer hierarchy") and states where it lands ("into a new parent layer in the specified open document"). It implicitly separates itself from sibling duplicate_objects by scoping to layer hierarchy rather than objects, though it never names that sibling.

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 implied rather than stated: "in the specified open document" signals the document must be open, and "Refuses a duplicate target parent" hints at a precondition. No explicit when-to-use or when-to-prefer-duplicate_objects guidance is provided, so the agent must infer the routing.

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