Removes a named CAD layer and reassigns all its entities to default layer 0 to keep drawing structure clean.
Delete a layer by name. Entities on that layer are reassigned to the default layer 0.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses a highly specific and important consequence: entities on the deleted layer are reassigned to the default layer 0 rather than being deleted. With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it partially does so by clarifying this destructive side effect – though it omits whether operations are reversible and if permissions are required.
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 sentences plus a dependent clause, all earning their place with zero waste. The critical side effect is front-loaded immediately after the action.
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?
The description is compact and complete for a single-parameter destructive tool. It covers the action, the identifier, and the major side effect on entities. It could have mentioned whether the deletion can be undone, but given the absence of an output schema and the minimal schema, it is largely sufficient.
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?
The description adds meaning by declaring that the 'name' parameter identifies the layer to be deleted, which is slightly more specific than the schema's bare 'type: string, minLength: 1' with 0% coverage. It does not need to describe other parameters since none exist. The baseline for zero params is 4, but here there is 1 param with no schema description, and the description provides enough context to call the tool correctly.
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 states a specific verb (Delete) and resource (layer) with an exact scope qualifier ('by name'). Among many layer-related siblings (create_layer, rename_layer, set_layer_visible, remove_raster_layer), the destructive nature of this tool is made explicit and distinct.
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?
There is no explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives, but the destructive nature of the tool makes its purpose self-evident. The description implies context through its purpose but does not state when to prefer this over siblings like remove_raster_layer.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.