duplicateLayer

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose where the duplicate is placed (above/below the original, top of stack), whether a name is auto-generated, whether existing layer references are affected, or what happens when the layer is not found. For a mutating/creating operation with zero annotation coverage, this is a substantial gap.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though arguably too terse given the ambiguity around layer identification and duplication placement.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and an unaddressed ambiguity about which of layerName/layerIndex identifies the target, the definition leaves the agent unable to call the tool confidently. Placement of the duplicate, return value, and error behavior are all unstated.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. However, the schema descriptions are terse ('Composition name', 'Layer name', 'Layer index'), and the description adds nothing about whether name or index is the identifying input, or how the engine resolves the two given that 0 parameters are required.

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 and resource: duplicating an existing layer within a composition. It is unambiguous about what the tool does, but gives no differentiation from siblings such as deleteLayer or create3DLayer, so an agent must infer which situations call for duplication rather than creation.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (e.g., whether an active composition is required), and no pointer to alternatives like createTextLayer or createSolidLayer for producing new layers. The agent gets no help deciding between this tool and its siblings.

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