rhino_cmd_layer_delete

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states that the operation deletes 'all its objects,' which is a key destructive side-effect. However, it does not mention irreversibility, whether confirmation is required, or what happens if the layer is current, locked, or referenced elsewhere. This is a minimal but honest disclosure, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 extremely concise: two sentences plus an Args section. It is front-loaded with the core action and includes the parameter description. There is no filler or redundant content, so it scores high on conciseness.

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 presence of an output schema and a single parameter, the description covers the essential operation. However, for a destructive tool, it lacks contextual details like safety warnings, prerequisites (e.g., layer must exist), or behavior for locked layers. The description is functional but not fully complete for a user who needs to understand the full impact.

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 schema has no description for the 'name' parameter (coverage 0%), so the description must compensate. It says 'Name of the layer to delete,' which adds basic meaning but no additional detail like case sensitivity, exact-match requirements, or whether it accepts a layer index. This is a bare minimum, hence a 3.

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 clear verb and resource: 'Delete a layer and all its objects.' This distinguishes it from many other layer tools in the sibling list, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the similarly named rhino_layer_delete sibling. The purpose is unambiguous, but the lack of sibling differentiation holds it back from a 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many other layer-related tools (e.g., rhino_layer_delete, rhino_layer_create, rhino_layer_purge_unused). It does not mention prerequisites, alternatives, or conditions where this tool is preferred. The agent is left to infer from the name alone.

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