duplicate_glyph

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose one meaningful behavior: the copy includes all layers and paths. But it says nothing about conflict behavior if new_name already exists, whether the original is left untouched beyond implication, error conditions for nonexistent glyph_name, or naming constraints — significant gaps for a mutation 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?

Two sentences, zero filler: the action is front-loaded in sentence one, and the use case in sentence two. Every word earns its place.

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 simple 2-parameter tool the essentials are covered: what it duplicates, the copy's scope, and why you would use it. But with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the absence of name-collision and error behavior leaves an agent guessing about failure modes.

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 must compensate. It clarifies the source/target roles (glyph is duplicated 'under a new name'), adding meaning beyond the bare titles. However, it provides no format guidance (e.g., Glyphs naming conventions), no constraint that new_name must differ from glyph_name, and no example, leaving meaningful semantics undocumented.

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 first sentence states a specific verb (duplicate), resource (glyph), and scope ('all layers and paths' under a new name). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like rename_glyph (which would not copy) and create_glyph (which would not duplicate existing content).

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?

The second sentence provides a clear use case ('creating alternates or backups before editing'), which implies when to use it. However, it never names alternatives explicitly or states when not to use this tool versus rename_glyph or create_glyph, leaving routing to inference.

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