rhino_layer_delete

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

The annotations already mark this as destructive (destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false), and the description adds a genuinely useful behavioral nuance: in standalone mode the layer is hidden and name-prefixed rather than truly deleted. This goes beyond the annotation and helps calibrate expectations. It still leaves 'standalone mode' and 'name-prefixed' somewhat undefined.

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 concise sentence with the core action front-loaded and the mode-specific behavior in a parenthetical. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 simple destructive operation, the core invocation is reasonably clear, and an output schema exists. However, the description does not define what 'standalone mode' means, what 'name-prefixed' entails, or what happens to objects on the deleted layer. These are meaningful gaps for an agent trying to predict the full effect of the call.

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 description clarifies that the required 'name' parameter is the layer's identifying key, which compensates for the schema's lack of description on that field. It does not mention the optional 'doc_id' parameter, though the schema documents that field. The description partially compensates for low schema coverage but not completely.

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 a specific verb ('Delete'), a clear resource ('a layer'), and the selection mechanism ('by name'). It is easy to understand what the tool does. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the similarly named sibling rhino_cmd_layer_delete or from rhino_object_delete, so it falls just short of full disambiguation.

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?

There is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention of what happens to objects on the layer. The phrase 'by name' implies the primary usage, but it does not help an agent decide between this and the many related layer/object deletion tools.

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