remove_vector_shapes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does add genuinely useful behavior: the special ["all"] argument performs a bulk wipe of every shape, which an agent must know before calling. However, it is silent on undo/irreversibility, behavior when a name is not found, and what happens when the optional layer argument is omitted (the active layer?).

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 sentence, front-loaded with the action, with the destructive special case in a parenthetical where it reads naturally. Nothing is redundant.

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?

This is an unannotated deletion tool with no output schema, an undocumented optional 'layer' parameter, and no statement about whether deletions are undoable or what is returned (e.g., count deleted). For a destructive operation, that leaves the agent with real gaps before calling.

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%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that 'names' is a list matched against shape names and documents the magic value ["all"] — meaningful value beyond the schema. But the 'layer' parameter is completely unexplained: its schema allows null and defaults to null, and the description never says which layer is targeted when it is omitted.

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 ('Delete') and resource ('shapes') with the scoping qualifier 'from a vector layer', which distinguishes it from delete_layer (which removes layers) and draw_shapes (which adds shapes). It does not explicitly name a sibling to defer to, but the resource is unambiguous enough to select it confidently.

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 when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance and no reference to alternatives such as list_vector_shapes for discovering valid shape names, or delete_layer for removing an entire layer. Usage is only implied by the verb itself.

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