deleteLayer

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says 'delete' but never states that the operation is destructive/irreversible, whether it can be undone via the project history, or what happens if the named layer does not exist — all important for a mutation tool.

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 no wasted words. It is efficient rather than padded, though its brevity is partly under-specification rather than disciplined concision.

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 tool with zero annotation coverage, no output schema, and identity parameters that are all optional, the description is thin. An agent has no information about failure modes, return value, or how the target layer is resolved.

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 the schema itself documents compName, layerName and layerIndex, which sets the baseline at 3. The description adds nothing about parameter interplay — notably that all three are optional, leaving unclear whether layerIndex takes precedence over layerName or whether compName is required to locate the layer.

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 gives a specific verb (delete) and resource (layer) with its scope (from the composition), so an agent immediately knows the operation. It does not, however, differentiate itself from adjacent siblings such as duplicateLayer or removeEffect, leaving the agent to infer the boundary from the name alone.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention of the undo/history siblings (rollback, getHistory) that a caller might need. Only the barest implied usage is present.

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