krita_delete_layer

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by specifying the deletion scope ('bounded subtree'), the rejection conditions, the return value ('removed handles'), and idempotent retry behavior. No contradiction with annotations.

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 two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the primary action and scope, then packs constraints, return value, and retry semantics into a compact, easily parsed statement.

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 destructive operation with four required parameters and no output schema, the description covers the target scope, rejection conditions, return value, and retry behavior. It could explicitly mention irreversibility, but destructiveHint already signals that, and instance/document semantics are not deeply explained.

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 adds clear meaning for operation_id ('reuse ... on retries') and loosely for node_id (targets a paint/group/mask node), but instance_id and document_id remain unexplained. This is partial compensation rather than full.

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 a specific verb ('Delete') and a precise resource ('explicit paint/group/mask node and its bounded subtree'), which distinguishes it from sibling layer operations like copy, merge, or transform. It also clarifies boundary conditions without ambiguity.

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 provides concrete usage context: it identifies what will be deleted, rejects locked/animated descendants and the last top-level layer, and gives explicit retry guidance by reusing operation_id. It does not name alternative tools, but the constraints make the applicable scenario clear.

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