remove_layer

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

The description discloses a key side effect: the associated source is also removed. This adds behavioral transparency beyond a simple 'Remove layer'. However, with no annotations provided, the description still lacks details on irreversibility, error behavior, or consequences for shared sources, leaving significant gaps for a destructive operation.

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 that conveys the core action and its primary side effect with zero wasted words. It is concise and directly to the point.

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 relatively simple tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description provides the essential context: what is removed and that the source is removed as well. It is sufficient for basic invocation, though it could be improved by mentioning error conditions or reversibility, but that is covered under behavioral transparency.

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 provides descriptions for all three parameters (100% coverage). The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 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?

The description clearly states the action ('Remove') and the specific resource ('a layer and its associated source'). It distinctively identifies this as the removal counterpart to sibling tools like add_layer and set_layer_paint, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, or when not to use it. The description only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer that it should be used when a layer/source needs to be removed. There is no mention of prerequisites, fallbacks, or exclusions.

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