design_remove_layer

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does not meet it. It does not say whether removal is reversible, what happens to child layers or masks attached to the layer, or what error results from an invalid layerId — all critical for a destructive mutation.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though brevity here is partly under-specification rather than disciplined trimming.

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, annotation-free tool with no output schema, the description omits what is returned and what side effects occur (child layers, masks, undo). The schema documents the two inputs, but nothing covers the consequences of the call.

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%, so both layerId and sketchId are documented in the schema, justifying a baseline 3. The description adds only the scoping phrase "active sketch," which actually narrows what the schema allows (an explicit sketchId) rather than clarifying it.

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+resource ("Remove a design layer") plus a scope ("from the active sketch"), which clearly separates it from the large family of design_add_*/design_update_layer siblings. It does not explicitly name a near-alternative such as design_duplicate_layer or design_clear_mask, but the intent is unambiguous.

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 on when to use this versus other layer operations, and no mention of prerequisites, confirmation, or undo. The only implied usage is that the layer must already exist, which the agent must infer.

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