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

Adds substantial behavior beyond annotations: it returns deleted layer ids and skipped ids, refuses the call atomically if any id is missing unless skip_missing is set, and saves as a new revision with limited undo semantics. These details let an agent understand destructive impact, failure modes, and reversibility even though destructiveHint is already true.

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 definition is dense but well organized: purpose first, then return and failure behavior, then revision/undo implications, then alternatives. Every sentence carries operational value.

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 mutation with no output schema, it supplies the missing context an agent needs: return values, atomic refusal behavior, skip_missing handling, revision/undo scope, and sibling alternatives. Nothing important appears missing for correct invocation.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds useful semantics about transactionality: one missing id refuses the whole call and nothing is deleted, and skip_missing changes that behavior by routing missing ids into skipped. It also reinforces that ids refer to layers from get_design and that nested contents are deleted with them.

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 layers from a design, including their contents and motion. It also distinguishes this from update_layers (hide) and delete_page (whole page), so an agent can choose it without ambiguity.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it: to remove layers the design no longer needs. It also names concrete alternatives for adjacent needs, including visible: false with update_layers for hiding and delete_page for page removal.

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