Remove a specified layer from a TidalCycles channel and trigger re-evaluation. Easily modify your music pattern or silence the channel entirely by dropping the last layer.
Remove a named layer from a channel and re-evaluate it. Removing the last layer silences the channel.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | The layer to remove | |
| channel | Yes | The channel (d1-d9) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose two useful traits: removal triggers a re-evaluation, and removing the last layer silences the channel. It is silent on the failure mode for a nonexistent layer name, whether removal is reversible/undoable, and any permission requirements.
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 short, front-loaded sentences with zero waste. The primary action comes first and the consequential side effect (last layer silences the channel) follows as a distinct, earned clause.
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?
For a simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the core operation and its main side effect. However, with no annotations marking this as a destructive mutation, the description should more clearly convey reversibility and the no-op/error case for an unknown layer.
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 coverage is 100% and the two parameters are self-describing (name, channel with d1-d9 enum), so the schema does the heavy lifting and baseline 3 applies. The description adds only 'named layer' and 'channel' framing, no format or matching semantics beyond the schema.
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+resource: 'Remove a named layer from a channel'. An agent can immediately tell this is the inverse of tidal_set_layer. It does not explicitly name that sibling or distinguish itself from silence-oriented tools like tidal_hush/tidal_silence, so it misses the top tier.
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?
Usage is implied by the operation ('remove a layer') but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing. With siblings like tidal_hush, tidal_silence, and tidal_set_layer, a sentence such as 'use tidal_hush to clear all layers, use tidal_set_layer to modify one' would have closed the gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.