autocad_delete_layer

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context not present in structured fields: the two hard failure conditions (non-empty layer, reserved names '0'/'Defpoints') and the success response shape. It omits whether deletion is undoable, but the added failure semantics are substantive.

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?

Compact docstring layout with purpose, preconditions, args, and returns front-loaded; no filler sentences. The Returns line partially duplicates the output schema, a minor redundancy.

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 an output schema present, the description need not detail return values, and it still briefly notes them. Annotations cover the destructive/idempotent profile and the description supplies the prerequisite failure modes, leaving only edge cases like undo behavior unstated.

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 description coverage is 0% and the description only restates 'name (str): layer to delete', which duplicates the schema's own property description verbatim. It adds no meaning about the naming constraints (pattern, maxLength) or that the layer must already exist, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap even though the parameter is simple.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Delete a layer'), which is unambiguous against siblings such as autocad_create_layer, autocad_set_layer_state, and autocad_list_layers. It does not name an alternative tool explicitly, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 failure preconditions ('fails if the layer still has entities on it, or is 0/Defpoints') give implied when-not guidance, letting the agent know it must clear entities first. However, it never states when to delete versus when to use a non-destructive alternative like set_layer_state, so usage guidance remains indirect.

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