style_copy_between_layers

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

With no annotations provided, the description effectively discloses that the tool overwrites target styles and handles failures per target without blocking others. This is sufficient for an agent to understand the mutation implications.

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 very concise, using only two sentences without wasted words. It front-loads the main purpose and provides critical behavioral details efficiently.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema (not shown), the description adequately covers the operation's behavior, including partial failure. It could mention prerequisites like layer compatibility, but the mention of incompatible layer types partially addresses this.

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?

Although schema description coverage is 0%, the description naturally implies the two parameters: source_layer_id ('one layer's style') and target_layer_ids ('one or more other layers'). This mapping is clear enough for an AI agent to infer parameter usage.

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 ('Copy one layer's style onto one or more other layers') with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes this tool from sibling style tools like style_set_single_symbol, which modify rather than copy styles.

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 advises confirming with the user before overwriting styles and explains the per-target failure behavior, providing useful context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over other style-related siblings.

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