uv-layer_delete

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states the deletion action but does not mention that the operation is destructive/permanent, what happens if the named layer does not exist, or how it interacts with the active UV layer state.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It immediately communicates the action, target, and selection criterion.

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?

For a tool with two parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is too sparse. It fails to explain the optional 'object' parameter, default target behavior, or error cases, leaving an agent inadequately informed to use the tool correctly in anything beyond the default case.

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, but it only restates the name parameter via 'by name' and provides no explanation of the optional 'object' parameter or its default behavior. The description adds essentially no meaning beyond the bare schema titles.

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 uses the specific verb 'Delete' and names the exact resource ('a UV layer') with the selection method ('by name'). It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like uv-layer_create and uv-layer_set_active by indicating it is the deletion operation.

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 intended use is implied by the action and resource, but the description provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives, no prerequisites (e.g., the layer must already exist), and no caveats such as consequences of deleting the active UV layer.

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