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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the agent knows this is a permanent mutation. The description adds a valuable, non-obvious behavioral detail: expectedSpecVersion guards against stale writes, implying optimistic concurrency and possible rejection. It does not state whether removal is reversible or what happens to layer data, which is a gap for a destructive operation.

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?

Two short sentences, no filler, and the destructive action is stated first followed by the critical precondition. Every sentence earns its place.

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, nested-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the main action and one key constraint, and annotations cover the safety profile. It still leaves the version-conflict behavior and the source of expectedSpecVersion unexplained, which an agent needs in order to call this reliably.

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?

Top-level schema coverage is 0%: projectId and expectedSpecVersion have no schema descriptions. The description compensates for exactly one of these by explaining the purpose of expectedSpecVersion (stale-write prevention), which is real added meaning beyond the bare integer constraint. It says nothing extra about projectId, and layerIds' semantics live only in the nested 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?

States a specific verb ('Remove') and resource ('one or more layers from a project map'), which is unambiguous on its own. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like project_add_layer or project_reorder_layers, but the destructive/additive distinction is obvious from the verb.

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 second sentence implies a precondition for use (a valid expectedSpecVersion to avoid stale writes), which hints at the concurrency workflow. However, there is no guidance on when to choose this over sibling layer tools, nor what to do when the version is stale or where the version comes from.

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