delete_cel

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description's added clause ('of a layer in the given frames') merely restates scope already encoded in the layer/frames parameters, and it says nothing about reversibility, batch-vs-live side effects, or the save/batch write-back behavior.

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?

A single short sentence with the verb and scope front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though the brevity comes at the cost of the operational context this nine-parameter tool needs.

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 nine parameters, zero required fields, and a live/batch backend switch, a one-line description leaves meaningful gaps: default resolution across layer/frame/sprite, batch mode requiring a file path, and whether undo is available. With no output schema, the description also gives no sense of what the call returns.

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 100%, so all nine parameters are documented in the schema itself, including defaults for frame, layer, sprite, and backend. The description mentions layer and frames but adds no syntax, precedence, or default-resolution meaning beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 correct.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Deletes the cel(s) of a layer in the given frames'), so an agent immediately knows the operation. However, it offers no differentiation from near siblings like delete_frames, delete_layer, update_cel, or copy_cel, which share the same sprite-editing domain.

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 guidance on when to use this versus delete_frames (which removes frames entirely) or clear/replace_color alternatives. No prerequisites, no note on how layer/frame defaults are resolved at call time, and no mention that deletion is undoable via undo_redo.

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