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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations by disclosing the all-or-nothing atomicity rule and that the same rules apply to each id.

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 three short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the batch purpose, then the critical all-or-nothing behavior, then the selection guidance.

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 destructive batch-removal tool with full schema coverage, annotations, and an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose, atomic failure behavior, and alternative selection. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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 both projectId and elementIds are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces that ids refer to leaf layers and share the same rules, but it does not add syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides.

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: removing many leaf layers in one call. It explicitly distinguishes the batch operation from the singular remove_layer sibling by contrasting MANY layers in ONE call against repeated remove_layer calls.

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?

It gives an explicit usage threshold: use this whenever you would call remove_layer more than a couple of times. That directly names the alternative tool and the condition for choosing this batch variant over it.

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