delete_layer

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden for a destructive mutation. It does not say whether the deletion is undoable, what happens to pixel content on the layer, whether it errors when the target is missing, or what the response contains. Only the default-target behavior is disclosed.

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?

One short sentence with the key behavior front-loaded and no filler. Nothing is bloated, though the brevity leaves the definition thin for a destructive operation.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented parameter, the description is too sparse. An agent cannot tell whether the call is reversible, what identifier to pass, or what it returns.

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 schema only shows a nullable string with default null, which gives an agent little to work with. The description partly compensates by explaining that omitting the argument targets the active layer, but it never states what form the 'layer' value should take (name, id, index).

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 ('Delete a layer'), which clearly separates it from siblings like create_layer, update_layer, and merge_down. It does not explicitly name those alternatives, but the action 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?

The only usage signal is the parenthetical '(default: active layer)', which explains fallback behavior when no argument is given. There is no guidance on when to prefer this over merge_down, update_layer, or remove_vector_shapes, and no mention of prerequisites or cautions before deleting.

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