layer_delete

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 states the action (delete) but does not describe critical behaviors such as whether deletion is permanent or reversible, if it requires specific permissions, what happens to child objects, or error conditions. This is a significant gap for a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage.

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, efficient sentence in Korean that directly states the tool's action without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and wastes no space, making it highly concise and well-structured for its minimal content.

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 complexity (a destructive delete operation), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to address behavioral aspects like permanence, permissions, or error handling, and does not explain return values or side effects, leaving the agent with insufficient context for safe and effective use.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'layerId' clearly documented as '삭제할 레이어 ID' (ID of the layer to delete). The description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema, such as format examples or constraints, but the schema provides adequate baseline information, justifying a score of 3.

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 '레이어를 삭제합니다' (Deletes a layer) clearly states the verb (delete) and resource (layer), making the purpose understandable. However, it does not differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'object_delete' or 'template_delete', which perform similar deletion operations on different resources, leaving room for ambiguity in sibling context.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., whether the layer must be unlocked or selected), exclusions (e.g., cannot delete locked layers), or comparisons to siblings like 'object_delete' for deleting objects instead of layers, leaving the agent without usage context.

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