Remove Layer

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description only adds the vague boilerplate 'write and path restrictions are subject to service capabilities' and never explains what happens on removal, whether the 'confirm' flag gates the deletion, or any undo/recovery behavior.

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?

Front-loads the operation in one short clause, but the second clause ('returns verifiable structured results; write and path restrictions...') is generic filler that carries little information for this specific tool.

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 needn't be explained, but the definition still leaves the destructive mutation's key details uncovered: what gets removed, the role of 'confirm', and required project/map context are absent, making it inadequate for a destructive 4-param tool.

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% across 4 parameters, and the description does not compensate: it never mentions aprx_path, map_name, layer_name, or the critical 'confirm' boolean. For a destructive operation, the meaning of 'confirm' is left entirely undocumented.

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 ('remove layer') that is immediately distinguishable from siblings like add_layer_from_path, insert_layer, or remove_table. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the operation itself is unambiguous.

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 guidance on when to use this versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention of the required aprx_path/map_name/layer_name context. The reader must infer everything from the schema.

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