eda_pcb_layer_remove_layer

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 only says it removes a layer and returns a boolean; it does not disclose that removal is destructive, whether it is reversible/undoable, whether it requires saving, or how errors are handled. This is a significant gap for a removal tool.

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 compact and logically organized into signature, remarks, and returns. Every line contributes meaning, though the mix of code snippet and Chinese natural language may be slightly less accessible to non-technical agents.

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 destructive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, this description is incomplete. It omits error behavior, irreversibility, whether it acts on the current document, and how to source a valid custom layer identifier – even though a sibling like eda_pcb_layer_get_all_layers exists to help.

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 description's signature adds the parameter name and type (layer: TPCB_LayersOfCustom), which is more informative than the generic args array in the schema. However, it does not enumerate valid values for TPCB_LayersOfCustom or explain how to obtain them, and windowId is already described in the schema.

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 removes a PCB layer via the signature 'removeLayer' and the Chinese '移除层'. It also includes the key constraint 'current only supports removing custom layers', which differentiates it from other layer management siblings such as add_custom_layer or modify_layer, though it does not explicitly name them.

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 remark '当前仅支持移除自定义层' implies this tool is only for custom layers, which serves as a partial exclusion. However, there is no explicit guidance about alternatives, prerequisites like having a valid custom layer, or what happens if a non-custom layer is targeted.

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