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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds genuinely new context by explaining that expectedSpecVersion is an optimistic-concurrency guard against stale writes. It stops short of saying whether removal is reversible, whether confirmation is expected, or what happens to downstream layer references.

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, the mutation stated first and the parameter caveat second. Nothing is padded or redundant.

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, non-idempotent mutation, the definition covers the core action and one important guard, and no output schema exists so return values need no explanation. Missing are reversibility, required authorization, and any confirmation workflow, which matter given the sibling geobble_confirm_action.

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 description coverage is 0%, but nested input documents layerIds and title, and the description supplements the otherwise-bare expectedSpecVersion with its concurrency-guard purpose. projectId remains explained by nothing beyond its uuid format, though its meaning is self-evident. This is net positive but not full compensation.

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?

"Remove one or more layers from a project map" gives a specific verb (remove), resource (layers), and scope (from a project map), which distinguishes it from geobble_project_add_layer. It does not, however, name or contrast with the many other layer-mutating siblings (set_layer_visibility, reorder_layers, duplicate_layer), so the differentiation is only implicit in 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 description never says when to reach for this tool versus alternatives such as hiding a layer with set_layer_visibility or deleting the underlying resource. The only conditional statement concerns a required parameter, not usage context or prerequisites like confirmation or permissions.

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