Remove a layer from an open InDesign document by its index, optionally choosing the target document by name or index.
Delete a layer
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| layerIndex | Yes | ||
| document_id | No | Which open document to act on: a name (see document_listOpen) or a 0-based index. Defaults to the front document. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.6.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses nothing: not whether deletion is permanent or undoable, whether contained objects are destroyed, which layer is targeted by default, or whether the front document is implicitly affected. For an irreversible-sounding mutation this is a complete 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?
Three words are technically concise, but this is under-specification rather than economy. There is no front-loaded scope, no qualification, and no sentence that earns value.
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?
With no annotations, no output schema, a destructive operation, and an undocumented required parameter, the description is not complete enough for an agent to invoke this safely or predictably. At minimum it should say which layer is affected and whether the action is reversible.
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 coverage is only 50%: document_id is documented with a useful description, but layerIndex, the required parameter, has no description anywhere. The tool description adds no meaning beyond the schema and does not compensate for the undocumented required argument.
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 'Delete a layer' merely restates the tool name layer_delete and the verb/resource pairing that is already obvious from the identifier. It states what happens in the broadest possible terms but distinguishes nothing from siblings such as layer_reorder or layer_setProperties, nor does it clarify scope (which document, which layer).
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives or of what happens to the layer's contents. The agent is left to infer everything from the tool name, even though sibling layer tools and undo/redo exist as relevant context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.