layer_delete

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose one meaningful trait: the deletion is snapshot-undoable, implying reversibility rather than permanent destruction. It omits whether a session must be open, permission requirements, or what happens to layer references, so disclosure is partial.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and target, with no filler. Every clause contributes (what it does, what identifies the target, and one behavioral trait).

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 need not be explained, and the reversibility note is useful. However, for a mutation tool with no annotations and an undocumented session_id, the description should say more about session context and failure modes to be fully actionable.

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% for two parameters, and the description only touches layer_id (the target layer), leaving session_id completely undefined in both schema and prose. One of the two required parameters has no semantics anywhere, so coverage is inadequate.

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 gives a specific verb and resource with scope ("Delete one layer identified by layer_id"), which cleanly separates it from layer_create, layer_update, and layer_reorder. It stops short of naming any alternative or clarifying intended/deleting conditions, so it is clear but not maximally differentiating.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. Notably, the tool says the operation is snapshot-undoable but never points the agent at session_undo for reverting it, which is the obvious routing an agent might need.

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