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

Adds real value beyond annotations: the non-destructive preview behavior when confirm is absent, the retention of the source and flattened images, and that the operation is free. Doesn't state irreversibility or what happens to dependents sharing the id, so not a 5.

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?

Short and front-loaded with the resource and side effects, then the call sequence. 'Free' is a slightly odd dangling fragment but harmless.

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 two-param destructive delete with full annotations and no output schema, the description covers ownership constraint, side-effect boundary, confirmation workflow, and cost — nothing material 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 coverage is 100% and both params are documented in the schema, so baseline 3. The description reinforces the confirm semantics but adds no format/syntax detail beyond the schema.

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?

Specific verb ('Remove') plus specific resource ('one of your own layers projects'), and it explicitly distinguishes scope from sibling hazards: 'The picture it came from and any picture you flattened from it stay in your library.' That contrast with flatten_layer_set/delete_my_asset behavior is exactly what an agent needs.

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?

Prescribes a concrete two-call protocol: call first without confirm (dry run, no change), then again with confirm true once the person agrees. It also names the origin tool for the id (split_image_into_layers/get_layer_set in schema) and says ownership is limited to 'your own' projects.

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