pcb_remove_layer

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it does disclose the underlying API call and the idempotent no-op behavior when the layer is absent. It omits critical details for a destructive stack edit: whether objects on the removed layer are deleted or orphaned, whether the change is undoable, and whether a minimum stack depth is enforced.

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?

Three short lines with the core action front-loaded, followed by implementation detail and the no-op edge case. No filler, and the Args/Returns blocks are scannable.

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 the Returns line is redundant but harmless. For a destructive layer-stack mutation with zero annotations, the definition should say whether copper on the removed layer is lost and whether the operation is reversible; that gap is significant for an agent deciding to call it.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does by giving concrete layer-name examples ('MidLayer1', 'InternalPlane2') that convey the expected string format. It stops short of covering naming variants or validation rules.

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 copper layer from the PCB layer stack') and names the underlying API call, which pins down the operation precisely. It doesn't explicitly contrast with pcb_add_layer or pcb_modify_layer, so sibling differentiation is left to the verb alone.

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 'Does nothing if the layer is not currently in the stack' line is a precondition/behavior note rather than usage guidance. There is no statement of when to reach for this versus pcb_add_layer, pcb_modify_layer, or pcb_set_layer_visibility, though the destructive verb makes the intent fairly self-evident.

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