ps_delete_layer

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, but it only states the action and target. It does not disclose that deletion is irreversible, what happens if no layer is active, or whether it changes the active layer afterward.

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 short sentence that states the operation directly with no filler. It is as concise as possible while remaining meaningful.

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 zero-parameter tool this is minimally viable: an agent knows what to invoke and on what target. Still, with no output schema and no annotations, a mention of destructive/irreversible behavior or failure conditions would make it more 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?

The tool has no parameters, and schema coverage is 100% for the empty parameter set, so the description need not document any arguments. Per the 0-parameter baseline, this is appropriate.

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, 'Delete the current active layer,' names a specific verb (delete) and resource (current active layer). It is unambiguous and clearly distinct from sibling tools such as ps_add_layer and ps_duplicate_layer, so an agent can identify this as the removal operation.

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 implies its use case: when the active layer needs to be deleted. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites, so guidance is only implied.

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