rhino_delete_layer

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows this is a mutation. The description adds the crucial detail that objects in the layer are also deleted, clarifying that the effect cascades to all contents. It does not mention whether the operation is reversible or what happens if the layer is empty, but the core destructive scope is transparent beyond the annotation hint.

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, direct sentence that front-loads the action and the target. There is zero waste, and it omits redundant filler. It is concise without losing the critical detail about object deletion.

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), the destructive annotation already covering nature, and the presence of an output schema, the description is largely complete. It tells the agent what happens (layer and objects removed). The only minor gap is the lack of mention about error handling when the layer does not exist, but that is not essential for a one-line tool.

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?

The single parameter 'name' is described in the schema ('Layer name to delete'), which provides the necessary semantics. The description text adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so it does not enhance parameter understanding. Since schema coverage is effectively provided (though context signals show 0% description coverage, the schema itself has a descriptive string), a baseline of 3 is appropriate; no extra value is delivered from the description.

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 ('Delete') and resource ('a layer'), and explicitly notes that it also deletes the layer's objects, which distinguishes it from tools like rhino_delete (deletes objects only) and rhino_create_layer. The purpose is unambiguous and immediately actionable.

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 the use case: when you want to remove a layer and all its geometry. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from related tools like rhino_delete (which might delete objects without the layer) or rhino_set_layer_visibility (which hides instead of deletes). No explicit 'when not to use' guidance is given, but the purpose is clear enough for straightforward selection.

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