Remove Layout

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

The annotation sets 'destructiveHint: true', and the description's 'Remove' is consistent. However, there is no additional disclosure about what happens upon removal (e.g., permanent deletion, effect on other elements). The description does not contradict 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 very concise with a single sentence, no filler. It is front-loaded with the verb. However, it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity.

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 simple tool, the description is incomplete: it does not specify how to provide the layout name (exact match?), nor the return value or success indicator. Since there is no output schema, the description should hint at what happens after removal.

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 input schema has 0% coverage with no parameter description, and the description does not clarify the expected format of 'layout_name' (e.g., case-sensitivity, name vs title). No added value beyond 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 action ('Remove') and the resource ('print layout'), with the scope 'from the project'. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like 'add_layout' and 'create_layout' which have opposite functions.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_layouts' to find layout names, or prerequisites such as having the layout open or saved. The description lacks any usage context.

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