delete_layer

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It indicates a destructive mutation ('Delete') but does not disclose side effects such as whether associated cels are removed, whether the operation is irreversible, or what happens if the layer does not exist. This is a significant gap for a destructive tool.

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 extremely short (one sentence) and to the point, but it lacks substance. It is concise but under-specifying, providing no additional value beyond what the tool name already implies. It does not earn its place with useful detail.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not specify error handling, return values, or behavioral effects on the document. An agent cannot safely predict the outcome or handle failures. This is insufficient for a tool of this nature.

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 does not explain either parameter. It mentions 'named layer' but does not clarify that 'filename' identifies the document and 'layer_name' identifies the layer. The agent is left to infer meaning from parameter names alone, which is insufficient.

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 the action (Delete) and the resource (a named layer from an Aseprite document). It is not a tautology and conveys the core purpose. However, it does not differentiate from sibling delete operations like delete_frame or delete_slice, but the resource type is explicit.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as merge_layer_down, set_layer_visibility, or delete_frame. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., layer must exist) or conditions where deletion is appropriate.

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