ae_delete_layer

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

With no annotations, the description takes on the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The explicit 'DESTRUCTIVE' label and the confirm gate clearly warn the agent that this is a mutating, guarded operation. It does not describe irreversibility or downstream effects, but the safety-critical behavior is unusually well flagged for a one-line description.

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?

The description is two short phrases with no filler. The action is front-loaded, followed immediately by the safety warning and confirmation requirement. Every word 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?

The description covers the destructive nature and confirmation requirement well, but it does not clarify that at least one composition reference and one layer reference should be provided, despite the schema only marking confirm as required. It also says nothing about failure behavior or return values, leaving some operational ambiguity for a tool with no output schema and no annotations.

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 baseline is 3 and the description does not need to add much. It merely restates the confirm=true requirement already present in the schema. No additional parameter-level nuance such as the preference ordering among name/index fields is given, though the schema itself already covers this.

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 description clearly specifies the verb 'Delete' and the resource 'layer', leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does. It also distinguishes itself from non-destructive sibling tools like ae_duplicate_layer and ae_get_layer. The resource type explicitly separates it from ae_remove_effect.

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 description does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ae_duplicate_layer or ae_remove_effect. It only adds the call requirement 'requires confirm=true', which is an invocation gate, not a usage guideline. No exclusions or conditions are provided.

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