remove_layer_action

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does usefully disclose the bulk-delete escape hatch ('all of them with index 0'), which the schema alone would not reveal. However, it says nothing about reversibility, undo, error behavior on an out-of-range index, or what happens to the plate afterward.

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 sentence with zero filler, and the destructive bulk case is placed at the end where it is easy to catch. Nothing is wasted.

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 an unannotated mutation tool with no output schema and 0% schema coverage, the definition is thin: the required 'plate' parameter is undefined and there is no statement of effect or failure mode. Only the index semantics and the bulk-delete case are adequately covered.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It fully explains 'index' (1-based, sourced from get_project, 0 means all), which is the key semantic. The required 'plate' parameter is left completely unexplained — whether it is a plate index or a name — leaving half the parameters undocumented.

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 ('Remove a layer action'), which pairs cleanly against the sibling add_layer_action. It also clarifies scope (single action vs. all actions). It does not explicitly name the sibling, 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?

The description tells the agent where the index comes from ('as listed by get_project'), which is real operational guidance. But it gives no guidance on when to use this versus related tools like remove_plate, remove_part, or remove_height_range, and no preconditions or confirmation guidance for a destructive operation.

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