delete_layer

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the write/destructive nature is covered structurally. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context — cascading deletion of children for group layers — but says nothing about undo/reversibility or the effect of the save/batch flag.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler. The most consequential fact (cascading child deletion) is stated immediately and nothing is redundant.

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 mutation with four parameters and no output schema, the definition covers the cascade behavior but omits whether the deletion is undoable and how save/backend interact with persistence. Annotations carry the safety signal, so this is adequate but not complete.

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% and all four parameters (save, layer, sprite, backend) are thoroughly documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 3 for fully-covered schemas applies.

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 (deletes) and resource (layer), plus the important cascade scope — children are removed when the target is a group. That scope detail helps distinguish it from sibling mutations like delete_cel or delete_frames, but it does not explicitly name or contrast those alternatives.

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 gives no when-to-use, prerequisites, or alternative guidance despite many nearby deletion siblings (delete_frames, delete_cel, delete_tag, delete_slice). The agent must infer the context of use entirely from the name and schema.

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