Borrar capas

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Borra' implies a destructive, likely irreversible mutation, but the description never states that deletion cannot be undone, whether it applies to a history step, or what happens if all layers or a locked/background layer are targeted.

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 short sentence with no filler and the action front-loaded, which is structurally clean. However, the brevity comes at the cost of the specification an agent needs, so it reads as under-specified rather than genuinely efficient.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and partial parameter documentation, the description is far too thin. It should at minimum warn about irreversibility and clarify how the two layer-accepting parameters interact.

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 67%: `doc` and `layer` have inline descriptions (including the {id|name|path|index|nth} form), but the `layers` array has none. The description adds nothing beyond restating 'one or several layers' and does not clarify the relationship or precedence between `layer` and `layers`.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Borra una o varias capas'), and the plural scope correctly signals that either the single `layer` or the `layers` array is accepted. It does not differentiate itself from neighboring layer tools such as ps_duplicate_layer, ps_merge_rasterize or ps_group, which an agent must distinguish among.

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 indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives like ps_merge_rasterize (which also removes layers) or ps_close (which discards a document). No prerequisites, no mention of whether the document must be open, and no guidance on choosing `layer` vs `layers`.

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