remove_usd_sublayer

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

Annotations already carry the safety profile (destructive=true, readOnly=false, idempotent=false), so the bar is lowered, and the description goes further by pinning the removal to the root layer's composition stack and spelling out the return shape. It does not discuss reversibility, auth, or side effects on dependent layers, but adds real context beyond annotations.

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 tightly scoped lines with the operation front-loaded and the return payload second. No filler sentences.

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 no output schema present, describing the return object is genuinely necessary and is done here, and the destructive nature is covered by annotations. For a destructive mutation it could still note the effect of an out-of-range index or whether the stage must be open, but the essentials are present.

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 both parameters (stage_name, sublayer_index) are already documented. The description's 'by index' phrasing restates the schema's 0-based index semantics without adding anything new, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 (Remove) plus resource (sublayer) and precise scope (stage's root layer's composition stack, by index), which cleanly separates it from insert_usd_sublayer and other layer ops like mute_usd_layer. An agent can identify the operation 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?

Usage is only implied by the verb and scope; there is no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisites, and no reference to alternatives such as insert_usd_sublayer or set_usd_edit_target. It is enough to proceed but leaves routing to inference.

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