Graphite: delete a layer

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

The annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, but the description adds crucial behavior beyond them: the cascade deletion of all contained elements, a recovery path via graphite_undo, and the specific LAYER_NOT_FOUND error for invalid ids. These details materially inform the agent about the operation's impact and failure modes.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, followed by reversibility and error behavior. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

Given the destructive nature, single required parameter, rich annotations, and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential gaps: deletion scope, recovery mechanism, and failure condition. No critical information is 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 description coverage is 100%, and the schema already explains that layer_id comes from graphite_insert_svg or graphite_get_document. The description only adds the error condition that the id must be in the active document, which is useful but minimal beyond the schema baseline.

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 precise verb-resource pair ('Delete a layer') and extends it with the critical scope 'and everything inside it,' which is not obvious from the name alone. It clearly distinguishes this destructive operation from sibling mutation tools like graphite_transform_layer or graphite_rename_layer.

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?

It gives clear contextual guidance: deletion is reversible via graphite_undo, and it fails with LAYER_NOT_FOUND when the id is not in the active document. This tells the agent when the operation succeeds or fails, but does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives or any exclusions.

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