duplicate_layer

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it does reveal one useful trait: the copy is placed directly above the source layer. However, it says nothing about whether the duplicate inherits the name, what happens on name collisions, or that this mutates project state.

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 short sentence with the key behavioral detail front-loaded and zero filler. It is efficient, though borderline too terse for a three-parameter mutation tool.

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 unannotated mutation tool with three undocumented parameters and no output schema, the agent lacks the naming rules, project scoping, and return information needed to invoke it reliably. The placement detail alone is not enough.

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 three parameters. The description only implies the 'layer' argument (the thing being copied) and gives no meaning for 'name' (duplicate's name?) or 'project' (target project context?). It fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 ('Copy a layer'), which clearly separates it from siblings like move_layer, remove_layer, and rasterize_layer. It lacks any explicit sibling differentiation or scope statement, but the action itself is 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus add_image, add_text, group_layers, or copying via other routes. The parenthetical only describes post-condition placement, not context for choosing the tool.

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