layout.delete

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Delete' implies a destructive mutation, but the description doesn't specify whether this operation is reversible, requires specific permissions, or has side effects (e.g., cascading deletions). It also doesn't describe the return value or error conditions, leaving significant behavioral gaps.

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, direct sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Delete a layout element'), making it immediately scannable and efficient. Every word earns its place, achieving optimal conciseness for such a simple tool.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks critical context: what happens after deletion (success/failure indicators), whether it's idempotent, permission requirements, or how it interacts with other layout tools. The high schema coverage doesn't compensate for these behavioral and contextual omissions.

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%, with the parameter 'layoutId' documented as 'Layout ID or name'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. Since the schema fully describes the single parameter, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate—the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to given complete schema coverage.

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 the verb ('Delete') and resource ('a layout element'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'layout.create', 'layout.update', and 'layout.get' by focusing on removal. However, it doesn't specify what constitutes a 'layout element' beyond the parameter name, leaving some ambiguity about scope.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether the layout must exist), consequences (e.g., if deletion is permanent), or relationships with sibling tools like 'layout.create' or 'layout.update'. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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