Delete Layout

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

It reveals destructive scope beyond the destructiveHint annotation: all entities on the layout are deleted. It also explains refusal conditions, the returned 'current' layout semantics, and that handles from the deleted sheet stop resolving.

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 front-loaded sentences: the core action first, then refusal conditions, then post-delete behavior. There is no redundant prose; every clause adds information.

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?

With destructiveHint set, one documented parameter, and an output schema present, the description covers valid inputs, invalid inputs, destructive consequences, and post-delete state transitions. Nothing needed for safe invocation is missing.

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?

The schema already documents name at 100%, so the baseline is satisfied. The description adds edge-case meaning: blank names are rejected, 'Model' is invalid, and the last remaining sheet is protected.

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 first sentence states the exact action ('Delete a paper-space layout') and the destructive scope ('every entity on it'). The 'Refuses model space' clause distinguishes it from any model-space deletion and from sibling delete tools operating on layers, viewports, or entities.

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?

The constraints ('Refuses model space, a blank name, and the last remaining sheet') define when the tool will not work, giving clear operational context. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state 'use X instead,' so it stops short of a full 5, but the intended use case is unambiguous.

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