layer_remove

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the layer is deleted only from the project, not from disk, and advises confirmation. It does not cover other behavioral aspects like reversibility or side effects, but covers the most critical safety aspect.

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?

Two sentences that efficiently convey the primary action and a key usage precaution. No extraneous information; every sentence adds 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?

Given the tool has only one parameter and no annotations, the description covers the main action and a usage guideline. However, it does not mention the return value (though output schema exists) or behavior in edge cases, leaving some gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only implies that 'layer_id' identifies the layer, but does not specify the format or provide examples. The single parameter is somewhat clear, but additional semantics would improve usability.

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 a layer') and specifies it is from the project, not disk. This distinguishes it from file deletion tools, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like layer_duplicate or layer_rename.

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?

Provides a guideline to confirm with the user before removing unbacked layers, which is helpful. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use instructions or references to alternative tools for different scenarios.

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