ae_duplicate_layer

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only restates the operation name. It does not explain whether the duplicate copies all properties, where the new layer is placed, how it is named, or whether the operation affects selections or subsequent actions.

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 with no filler or redundancy. While it is very terse, every word contributes to stating the core action and scope, though it omits useful behavioral context.

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 two-parameter operation, the description is minimally viable: it identifies the target composition and layer via the required parameters. However, it lacks detail about duplicate naming, placement, and whether effects/properties are copied, which an agent may need for downstream steps after duplication.

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 already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for both comp_name and layer_name, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already states.

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 states a specific verb ('Duplicate') and resource ('layer within a composition'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like ae_duplicate_composition, ae_delete_layer, and ae_rename_layer. There is no ambiguity about what operation is performed.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as ae_duplicate_composition for copying compositions or ae_add_*_layer for creating new layers. There is no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or preferred contexts.

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