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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description earns credit for the additions: it says exactly what is destroyed (the data layer and its stored tiles), the downstream effect on referencing maps, that the operation is irreversible, and the authorization requirement (workspace owner only). All four are things the structured fields cannot express.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then consequence, then irreversibility, then permission. There is no filler, and each sentence carries information an agent needs.

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 single-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers what is deleted, the side effect, irreversibility, and the permission gate. An agent has everything needed to call it safely.

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% with a single parameter, and the schema already documents that dataset_id is a uuid sourced from list_datasets. The description adds no further semantics about the parameter, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate for a schema that does the heavy lifting.

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 and resource: 'Delete a hosted data layer and its stored tiles.' That is unambiguous. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from the other delete-family sibling (delete_sprite), but the resource is clear enough for routing without opening a schema.

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?

'Workspace owner only' establishes a precondition, and the map-reference note implies the operational context. However, there is no explicit guidance on when this is the right choice versus alternatives, and no warning to verify the dataset via list_datasets before calling. Usage is only implied.

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