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

The description aligns with the annotations (destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false) by stating it removes a layer. It does not add extra behavioral context beyond what annotations already provide, such as permanence or side effects, but it does not contradict the annotations either.

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, concise sentence that fully communicates the tool's purpose without any wasted words or unnecessary detail. It is well-structured and front-loaded.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity, one required parameter with full schema coverage, and annotations covering destructive/idempotent behavior, the description is sufficiently complete. It lacks only minor details like return value or side effects, but these are not critical for a removal operation.

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 the parameter description already explains that the ID can be obtained via listLayers. The tool description itself does not add additional parameter semantics, 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?

The description clearly states the action (remove), the resource (layer from map), and the method (by layer ID). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like removeEntity and removeAnimation by explicitly targeting layers.

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 implies usage: use this tool to remove a layer by ID. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives (e.g., removeEntity) or mention any prerequisites beyond the ID being available via listLayers, which is only in the schema, not the main description.

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