Delete Layer Selection

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds genuinely new behavior: empty selections are refused, expected_count is enforced as a guardrail, and the deletion does NOT enter the Pro UI Undo stack. The non-undoable trait is important, actionable context not captured by the annotations.

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?

A single semicolon-delimited sentence with the action front-loaded and zero filler. Efficient and well-ordered, with the destructive action stated first and the constraints following.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. But for a destructive mutation with three 0%-documented parameters, the description omits aprx_path/layer_name semantics and does not route against the many delete-related siblings, leaving meaningful gaps.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden. It explains expected_count's role (must match the selection count) but says nothing about aprx_path or layer_name beyond an implied reference to the CURRENT layer, leaving two of three parameters undocumented anywhere.

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 (删除/delete) and resource (要素 in the CURRENT layer's current selection), and scopes it to the active selection rather than arbitrary features. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not name the sibling alternatives (e.g., da_delete_selected, sdk_delete_selected_features) it must be distinguished from.

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?

Gives preconditions — empty selections are rejected and expected_count must match — which implies the intended use case. However, it never states when to prefer this over the other delete-selection siblings, so routing is left to inference.

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