remove_landscape_layer

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: it clarifies the destruction is a detach that leaves the LandscapeLayerInfo asset intact and that blending materials will read zero weight, plus an already_absent return signal. That is genuinely useful scoping, though permissions/undo behavior are unaddressed.

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-loaded with verb + resource, then identification method, then behavioral consequences, then the return shape. No sentence is redundant, and every clause — including the returns block — earns its place.

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?

There is no output schema, so the embedded Returns block is genuinely necessary and is included with field-level types. Combined with annotations covering the safety profile and schema descriptions covering all three optional parameters, an agent has everything needed to invoke this correctly.

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%, so the schema already documents the mutual resolution between layer_info_path and layer_name, including the 'resolved by layer_name if omitted' fallback. The description's 'either by layer_info_path or by layer_name' restates that logic rather than adding new semantics, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Unregister a target weight (paint) layer from a landscape') and immediately distinguishes itself from its sibling by naming add_landscape_layer as the inverse operation. The identification paths and scope (detach from terrain, not delete) are made explicit, so an agent can route to it correctly without opening the schema.

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?

Names the sibling relationship ('the inverse of add_landscape_layer') which gives clear context for when this tool applies, and explains the two valid identification routes. It stops short of an explicit when-not or a named alternative besides the inverse, so it is strong context rather than full routing guidance.

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