cavalry_delete_layers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely states deletion without warning about irreversibility, potential cascading effects, or what happens if layer IDs are invalid. This is a significant transparency gap for a destructive operation.

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 a single clear sentence with no superfluous words. It is front-loaded with the action verb and resource, making it easy to parse.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema) and lack of annotations, the description is minimally adequate but leaves out important context such as the destructive nature and any return information. It is not as complete as it could be for a delete operation.

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% with a clear parameter description ('Array of layer IDs to delete'). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond that, but the baseline for high coverage is 3, which is appropriate here.

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 tool's function: 'Delete layers from the Cavalry scene by their IDs.' It uses a specific verb (delete), a specific resource (layers in a Cavalry scene), and the method (by IDs), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like cavalry_create_layer or cavalry_set_attribute.

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 implies usage by naming the operation, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or edge cases. For a simple delete operation, the context is somewhat apparent, but no explicit guidance is provided.

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