delete_layer

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

Annotations already mark this as destructive, non-read-only, non-idempotent, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the 'unused' precondition, which is useful behavioral context, but it does not explain what happens if the layer is in use, whether deletion is reversible, or any failure modes. This is a modest addition beyond annotations.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise, though the extreme brevity leaves important context unstated 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?

With an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, for a destructive tool with one undocumented parameter and many sibling layer operations, the description omits key prerequisites and side effects, such as whether a used or current layer can be deleted. It is not complete enough for correct invocation.

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?

There is one required parameter, name, and schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the description should compensate for missing parameter documentation. The description does not mention the name parameter, its expected format, or which layer it identifies, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema's bare property title.

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 clear verb and resource: delete a layer. It implies a constraint that the layer must be unused, which distinguishes it somewhat from create/update/list layer tools. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from delete_entities or explain the 'unused' condition, so it is not fully precise.

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 offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update_layer or delete_entities. The word 'unused' hints at a precondition, but there is no statement of exclusions, prerequisites, or alternatives.

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