delete_layer

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. The description only says 'Delete a layer'—it does not state that the operation is destructive, whether it is reversible, if confirmation is needed, or what happens to keyframes or effects on the deleted layer. This is insufficient for a deletion 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 sentence with no waste, and the purpose is immediately clear at a brief glance. However, it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity.

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?

Given the 0% schema coverage, lack of annotations, no output schema, and four parameters with no context, the description is critically incomplete. An agent cannot determine how to safely invoke this tool, whether it requires additional setup, or what the outcome entails. The sparse description fails to compensate for the lack of supporting structured metadata.

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%, and the description adds no meaning to any of the four parameters (compId, compName, layerName, layerIndex). An agent must infer that these identify the target layer and composition, but no clarification is given about whether these are optional or how to use them in combination. The description adds no value over the raw schema.

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 'Delete a layer' states the basic action but fails to specify what type of layer or from what context (e.g., from a composition or project). Given 28 sibling tools for adding and modifying various layer types, this vague verb+resource phrase offers no differentiation, making it hard for an agent to distinguish from related operations.

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 like delete_composition, or whether the layer deletion is permanent or requires preconditions such as selecting the correct composition. With numerous sibling tools, the absence of usage context severely undermines correct selection.

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