photoshop_delete_layer

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Delete' implies a destructive, irreversible mutation, but the description doesn't state whether the action requires confirmation, whether it's recoverable via undo (photoshop_undo exists as a sibling), or whether it fails when no layer is active. It adds almost no behavioral context beyond the verb.

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?

A single short sentence with zero waste, front-loading the verb and the object. Appropriately sized for a zero-parameter action.

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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be explained, but with no annotations and a destructive operation, the definition leaves key facts unstated: it's irreversible without undo, it requires an active layer, and it fails on an empty layer stack. That's insufficient context for a mutation tool.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so parameter semantics are a non-issue; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly implies the target is the 'currently active layer' rather than an ID.

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 the currently active layer'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like create_layer, duplicate_layer, and set_layer_visibility. It's clear what the tool does, though the phrasing is minimal.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no mention of when not to use it, no prerequisites (e.g., that a layer must be active/selected first), and no reference to alternatives like reordering or modifying visibility instead.

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