remove_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. The description earns credit by extending that: it discloses destructive *scope* — deleting a group also deletes its children — which annotations cannot express. It does not say what happens on a missing/ambiguous layer name, which keeps it from a 5.

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 well-formed sentence with the operation front-loaded, the group/children caveat close behind, and zero filler. Nothing could be trimmed without losing information.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description needn't explain returns, and annotations supply the destructive/safe-read profile. Still, for a destructive two-parameter tool it omits error behavior, index basis, and what 'filename' refers to — enough gaps that an agent may guess on edge cases.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load. It does clarify accepted formats for 'layer' (name or 1-based index), which is meaningful. However, 'filename' is never addressed, and it does not say whether the index counts all layers, top-level layers only, or respects ordering — leaving half the params undocumented.

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 precise verb (Delete) and resource (layer) and immediately resolves the layer-vs-group ambiguity by noting groups and their children go too. That scope distinction separates it from sibling mutations like delete_cel, remove_frame, and remove_tag. It does not explicitly name a sibling, so it lands just short of a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no note on prerequisites (e.g. whether the layer must exist or be unlocked), and no pointer to alternatives such as clear_layer. The purpose is inferable from the name, but the description itself provides no routing information.

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