cavalry_delete_layersDeletes one or more Cavalry layers by ID. Non-existent IDs are reported instead of causing failure, so batch removals continue.
Delete one or more layers. Ids that do not exist are reported back instead of failing.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| layerIds | Yes | One or more Cavalry layer ids. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds genuine context beyond them: nonexistent ids are reported back rather than raising an error, implying partial-success semantics the agent could not infer from the annotations alone.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed immediately by the failure-mode caveat. Nothing is wasted or redundant.
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 carries the return-value burden, and it does disclose what happens to invalid ids. For a single-parameter destructive tool whose annotations already cover reversibility, this is nearly complete; it could say more about whether deletion is immediate or scoped to the current scene.
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% and the single required parameter (layerIds) is fully documented in the schema. The description's 'one or more layers' restates the array without adding id syntax, ordering, or batching detail, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 (delete) and resource (layers) with cardinality ('one or more'), so an agent can distinguish it from create_layer, rename_layer, or delete_keyframes. It does not explicitly name a sibling or contrast with related tools, so it stops 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 explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as duplicating/renaming layers instead. The only guidance is negative-case behavior (nonexistent ids do not fail), which is behavioral rather than usage-routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.