duplicate-layer

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the transparency burden. It states the core operation and optional rename, which implies the original is preserved, but it does not disclose details such as the insertion position of the duplicate, the active comp fallback, or return values.

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 that states the primary action first and includes only necessary qualifiers. Every word contributes meaning; there is no redundancy or filler.

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 tool with five parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and targeting but omits cross-parameter constraints and return/error behavior. The schema fills many gaps, but the description could be more complete regarding parameter relationships.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all five parameters, earning the baseline of 3. The description adds marginal value by restating layerIndex/layerName targeting and optional renaming, but it does not introduce constraints like exclusivity between layerName and layerIndex.

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 opens with a specific verb 'Duplicate' and defines the resource 'layer in a composition', then adds optional renaming and target selection via layerIndex or layerName. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete-layer, inspect-layer, or setLayerKeyframe.

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 description provides clear context that the tool is for creating a copy of a layer and states how to target it. While it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, the purpose is self-evident and no conflicting sibling tool exists, so the implied usage is clear.

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