Remove Layout

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 description need not repeat these. It adds only that results are 'verifiable and structured' and that write/path limits depend on service capabilities — mildly useful but not substantive. It fails to disclose what actually gets destroyed (the layout and its elements) or any auth/confirmation requirements, notably that a 'confirm' parameter exists.

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 description is short and front-loads the core action, but the second sentence is boilerplate that applies to many tools and adds little value. It is not wasted length, but it is low-information filler.

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?

Although an output schema exists (so return values need not be explained), the description omits critical context for a destructive mutation: whether confirmation is required, what happens to dependent elements, and any permission requirements. For a 3-parameter destructive tool with 0% schema coverage, this is insufficient.

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% for all three parameters (aprx_path, layout_name, confirm). The description does not explain what these parameters mean, what format aprx_path should take, or what the confirm flag does. With zero coverage, the description must compensate, and it does not.

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 and resource ("移除布局" — remove layout), which is clear enough. However, it provides no differentiation from sibling tools like arcgis_pro_remove_map or arcgis_pro_remove_project_toolbox, and the remaining sentence is generic filler rather than purpose clarification.

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 tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention of the destructive nature of the operation. The sentence about 'write and path limits depending on service capabilities' is vague and does not help the agent decide when to invoke this tool.

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