ae_deleteLayer

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is structured. The description adds one genuinely useful piece of beyond-annotation context: the operation is undoable via Ctrl+Z, which moderates the destructive flag. It does not cover what happens to layer references, indexes of remaining layers, or behavior when a named layer is missing.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the application and the action, with the undo caveat in parentheses. Nothing is wasted and nothing competes for attention.

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 destructive mutation with no output schema, the description plus annotations cover the essentials (what it does, that it is destructive, that it is undoable). Gaps remain around failure modes, required app/comp state, and whether deletes are batched atomically when an array is passed.

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 description says nothing about either parameter, and schema description coverage is only 50% with a nested anyOf structure for 'layer'. The meaning of layer name vs 1-based index, and the fallback to the active comp for compositionName, must be gleaned entirely from the schema, so the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 ('delete one or more layers') in the After Effects namespace, and the plural phrasing correctly signals the single-value-or-array parameter shape. It is clear, though it gives no explicit differentiation from any sibling since none of the listed siblings also deletes layers.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent must infer that layers must already exist in a comp and that a comp must be active or named. There is no when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives (e.g., hiding vs deleting, or how this relates to ae_selectLayers/ae_duplicateLayer).

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