Removes distribution preview or Voronoi guide layers from the document, optionally targeting a specific layer ID or clearing all distribution guides.
Remove distribution:preview or distribution:voronoi guide layers from the document.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| layerId | No | Specific layer ID to remove; omit to remove all distribution guide layers |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for a destructive operation. It says layers are removed, but does not disclose irreversibility, permission requirements, or the effect on unrelated guide layers, and the all-layers behavior is documented only in the schema.
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 definition is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted text. It states the action and target directly, which is appropriate for a simple one-parameter removal tool.
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 low-complexity tool with one optional parameter and full schema coverage, the description identifies what gets removed. However, because there are no annotations and no output schema, the omission of destructive/safety context leaves it only minimally complete.
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 100% and the single optional layerId parameter is fully documented there, including the behavior when omitted. The description itself adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 ("Remove") and specific resource ("distribution:preview or distribution:voronoi guide layers"), so the agent knows exactly what the tool deletes. It is not explicit about how it differs from nearby siblings such as design_clear_guides or design_clear_construction_guides, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.
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 implies usage by saying which layers it removes, but it does not state when to choose this over design_clear_guides or other clear_* tools. It also gives no explicit exclusions or prerequisites, leaving routing mostly to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.