remove_layer

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies destruction but says nothing about irreversibility, whether unsaved edits are discarded, what happens if the id/name matches nothing, or whether save_project is needed afterward.

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?

Short and front-loaded with the action first, which is good. However, the Georgian sentence restates the same content verbatim with slight added meaning ("from the project"), making it duplicative rather than additive for most readers.

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 destructive, un-annotated tool with no output schema, the description omits failure behavior, side effects on dependent layers, and required follow-up steps. Only the identifier forms are covered.

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 single parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does add the useful fact that the identifier may be an id or a name, but gives no format, exact-match, or case-sensitivity guidance for either form.

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 ("Remove a layer") and identifies the accepted identifier forms. It is implicitly distinguishable from siblings like add_layer and list_layers, though it never names a sibling or the scope (project-level removal is only in the Georgian line).

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 guidance on when to use this versus list_layers/layer_info to resolve a layer first, nor any note about when removal is inappropriate. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name.

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