gimp_delete_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 covered by structured data. The description adds nothing on top of that: no undo semantics, no confirmation requirement, no statement about what happens to the layer content or the image stack.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero padding, which is structurally fine, but the brevity is under-specification rather than efficiency — the sentence carries no operational detail an agent needs.

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?

The tool itself is simple and annotations plus an output schema offload some burden, but with 0% parameter coverage and no guidance on sourcing the layer_id or the effect on the layer stack, the definition is not sufficient 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 0% and the sole parameter (layer_id) is not mentioned at all in the description. With no schema documentation to lean on, the description should explain how a layer_id is obtained (e.g., via gimp_list_images or layer listing) but does not. Only the self-explanatory parameter name prevents a lower score.

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 verb+resource pair ("Elimina una capa") is unambiguous and the destructive verb separates it cleanly from siblings like gimp_new_layer, gimp_duplicate_layer and gimp_merge_layers. It is however extremely terse and says nothing about which layer or the scope of deletion.

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?

No when-to-use, when-not, or alternative routing is given. An agent cannot tell from the description whether to delete vs merge/duplicate, or whether this requires an active image context. It is a bare statement of function.

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