remove_layerDelete a layer from a Compositor .comp project, including its image and mask files. For folder layers, removes everything inside it.
Deletes a layer (and, for a folder, everything inside it) together with its image and mask files.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | Path to the .comp project package (a directory ending in .comp) | |
| layer | Yes | Layer UUID or its exact name |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
While annotations already indicate destructive and idempotent behavior, the description adds crucial specifics: recursive deletion for folders and removal of image/mask files. This goes beyond the annotations and sets clear expectations.
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, information-dense sentence front-loads the main action and then specifies the extent of deletion. No filler words.
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 core behavior and destructive scope. It does not mention error handling or return values, but given the simple delete operation and no output schema, this is acceptable.
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 coverage is 100% with both parameters well-described. The description does not add new parameter details, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage, so 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?
The description clearly states the action (deletes a layer), the resource (layer), and additional detail (folder recursion, image and mask files). It distinguishes from siblings like move_layer and set_layer by focusing on 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?
The purpose is obvious: use when you want to remove a layer. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the unique 'delete' action among siblings makes the context clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.