duplicate_layer

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Duplicate') but doesn't explain what duplication entails—e.g., whether it copies properties, effects, or keyframes; if it requires specific permissions; or what the expected outcome is. This leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place, contributing to clarity without redundancy.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like what gets duplicated, potential side effects, or error conditions. Given the complexity implied by sibling tools (e.g., involving compositions and layers), more context is needed to ensure the agent can use it correctly without guesswork.

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 has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for 'compId' and 'layerIndex'. The description doesn't add any additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining what a 'layer' is in this context or how indices work. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the parameter details adequately.

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 clearly states the action ('Duplicate') and resource ('a layer within a composition'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'duplicate_composition' or 'batch_create_layers' that might involve similar duplication logic, missing explicit distinction.

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. For example, it doesn't mention when to choose 'duplicate_layer' over 'batch_create_layers' or 'duplicate_composition', nor does it specify prerequisites like needing an existing composition or layer. The description lacks context for decision-making.

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