remove_layer

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it does add one valuable trait: the deletion is undoable/reversible. It omits other relevant behavior such as whether child layers, masks, or effects are removed with the layer, and whether any permission is required.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no waste; the verb and resource lead, and the reversibility note is a compact qualifier. Nothing could be cut without losing information.

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 mutation tool with two undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this is too thin. It should state the layer identifier convention, the role of 'project', and the side effects on masks/effects.

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%, so the description must compensate for both 'layer' and 'project' parameters, and it does not. It never clarifies how the layer is identified (name vs id) or what the optional project scoping does.

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?

States a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('layer'), so the agent knows exactly what the tool does. It does not, however, differentiate itself from adjacent siblings like remove_mask, remove_effect, or ungroup, which an agent could plausibly confuse.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite, and no mention of alternatives such as remove_mask or merge_down. The parenthetical '(undoable)' hints that redo/undo can reverse it but does not route the agent between tools.

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