remove_layer

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

No annotations are provided, so the description alone must disclose behavioral traits. It conveys that the tool performs a removal from the active map, but it does not state whether the operation is reversible, whether it affects underlying data or source files, or what happens when the layer name is not found. For a destructive operation, this is a meaningful transparency gap.

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 two lines long with no filler, front-loads the core purpose, and then documents the single parameter in a clean Args block. Every word earns its place.

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?

For a simple one-parameter removal tool, the description covers the essential invocation details: what is removed, from where, and how to identify it. An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not the description's responsibility; only minor behavioral details like error cases are missing.

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% and the schema only defines 'name' as a required string. The description compensates by specifying that the value must be the exact layer name as shown in the Contents pane, adding matching semantics that are essential for correct invocation.

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 uses a specific verb ('Remove') and a clear resource ('layer from the active map'), and specifies the lookup method ('by name'). This distinguishes it from siblings that add, zoom, or toggle layers, so an agent can tell exactly what the tool does.

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 usage context—removing a layer from the active map by exact name—but it does not explicitly mention when to choose this over alternatives such as set_layer_visibility (hiding) or clear_selection. There is no exclusion guidance or comparative routing, so usage is only implied, not fully stated.

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