outliner-view_layer_delete

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds two key constraints (force requirement and last-layer restriction), which is useful. However, it does not explain what happens on success/failure, side effects like confirmation prompts, or scope of deletion. The value added is moderate but minimal for a destructive operation.

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 a single, compact sentence that conveys the essential purpose and a key constraint. It avoids unnecessary detail and front-loads the action. Every word is meaningful, making it highly concise with no waste.

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 tool is simple with two parameters and no output schema, so the description need not explain return values. It covers the core delete action and the critical 'force' constraint, but it leaves ambiguity about what 'force' exactly does (it is only described as 'Confirm render organization change' in the schema) and does not explain the consequence of attempting to delete the last layer. For a destructive operation, this is borderline complete but lacks clarity on the force parameter's necessity.

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. It mentiones that force is required, but the schema lists force with a default of false and does not mark it as required. This is a contradiction with the schema, and the description adds no further detail about the 'name' parameter or the meaning of force beyond the schema's title. The information is sparse and slightly misleading.

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 (delete a view layer) and identifies the resource (view layer). It distinguishes from sibling tools like outliner-view_layer_create and outliner-view_layers by explicitly naming the delete operation, making the purpose 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?

It provides important usage context by stating that force is required and the last layer cannot be deleted. This gives the agent criteria for invoking the tool, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives like when to use view_layer_create instead. The guidance is clear enough for a delete operation.

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