remove_layer

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not state whether removal is destructive to data on disk versus only the map document, whether it requires the map to be active/saved, or whether the removal is reversible. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage this is a notable gap.

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?

One short sentence with no filler, and the verb and target are front-loaded. It is efficient, though it is arguably under-specified rather than ideally concise given the complexity of the operation.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the parameters are fully covered by the schema. However, for a destructive mutation with no annotations, the description omits the data-safety distinction and any precondition context, leaving meaningful gaps.

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 (map_name with its active-map default, layer_name with its get_layers/path hint) are already documented in the schema. The description adds nothing beyond that, which is the baseline-3 case when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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') and resource ('a layer or standalone table') plus the scope ('from a map'), which distinguishes it from siblings like delete_dataset or remove_map. It does not explicitly name which sibling to use for permanent data deletion, but the operation itself is unambiguous.

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 guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. An agent cannot tell from the description whether this removes the layer only from the map or deletes underlying data (delete_dataset exists as a sibling), nor what happens if the layer is the sole source of a join or selection.

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