tv_delete_layout

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true), the description discloses specific behavioral traits: it requires confirm=true, refuses anything in protect, refuses the currently displayed layout unless force=true, and verifies by re-listing. These details are critical for safe invocation and are not present in the annotations or schema.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Delete ONE saved layout') and then packs the essential safety constraints into a compact, readable structure. Every clause adds value, and there is no filler.

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 tool with 7 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the key behavioral context: irreversibility, confirmation requirement, protection list, force override, and post-deletion verification. This is sufficient for an agent to safely invoke the tool without additional context.

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 100%, so all parameters are documented. The description adds interaction semantics beyond the schema: it explains that confirm must be true, that protect acts as a safeguard, and that force overrides the current-layout refusal. This enriches parameter understanding, though not every parameter (e.g., timeout_s, expect_layout) is explicitly tied to the description, but the schema already covers those.

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 states a specific verb ('Delete'), a specific resource ('ONE saved layout'), and the exact identification methods (by layout id, numeric id or exact name). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like tv_list_layouts or tv_copy_layout, and the scope ('ONE') prevents confusion with bulk deletion tools.

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 tool is for deleting a single saved layout but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives (e.g., tv_delete_alerts) or provide exclusions. The destructive nature and safety constraints are mentioned, but no direct guidance on when-not-to-use is given. Purpose clarity already covers the 'what', but 'when' is left implicit.

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