duplicate_layer

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one behavioral fact beyond annotations — that cels are carried along — but says nothing about whether the duplicated cels are linked or independent (relevant given the link_cels sibling), how the new layer is named, or how it interacts with the save/backend mode.

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?

A single tight sentence with no waste and the core action front-loaded. It is arguably under-specified rather than over-verbose, so it does not reach a 5.

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 mutation tool with five parameters, no output schema and no required fields, the description is too thin: it omits how the copy is named, whether it lands on the active layer context, and how save/backend defaults affect the write. The schema and annotations carry most of the load, leaving the description incomplete.

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 80%, so the schema already documents 'save', 'layer', 'sprite', and 'backend' thoroughly. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the implicit cels scope, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Duplicates a layer') and adds scope ('with all its cels'), so the agent knows exactly what the operation produces. It does not, however, distinguish itself from neighboring tools such as duplicate_sprite, copy_cel, or add_layer.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus copy_cel, link_cels, add_layer, or duplicate_sprite, and no mention of prerequisites or context. The agent must infer usage purely from the name.

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