Delete Layout

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description reveals significant behavioral details: deletion cascades to all entities on the layout, certain inputs are refused, and if the current tab is deleted, the returned 'current' field indicates where geometry goes next and handles stop resolving. This is rich, non-obvious context that the annotation alone does not provide.

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 extremely concise: two sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second covers edge cases and side effects. Every word earns its place, and the structure is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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?

With only one parameter, a clear output schema, and a destructive action, the description is fully complete. It covers what gets deleted, safety guards (refusals), and behavior on the current tab. No important context is missing for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The input schema already fully describes the only parameter 'name' with 'Paper-space layout tab to delete (never 'Model')', achieving 100% schema coverage. The description does not add any new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool deletes a paper-space layout and every entity on it, using the specific verb 'Delete' and a well-defined resource. It also distinguishes itself from sibling layout tools (create, rename, copy, set_current) by focusing on deletion and scope.

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 description provides implicit usage guidance by listing refusal conditions: model space, blank name, and the last remaining sheet. This helps the agent know when the tool cannot be used, but it does not explicitly name alternative tools for cases like renaming or copying layouts, so it is slightly below full guidance.

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