remove_layer_from_map

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses key behaviors: the tool mutates the project structure, does not delete underlying datasets, and requires confirm=true. It does not cover error cases or permissions but is adequate for safe usage.

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 four concise sentences, each serving a purpose: action statement, use-case guidance, behavioral note, and parameter requirement. It is front-loaded with the core action and avoids extraneous content.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (5 parameters, output schema present), the description covers the key aspects: purpose, usage, safety (confirm, no data deletion). It lacks error handling or default behavior for map_name, but the schema supplies parameter details. Overall sufficient for a mutation tool.

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 input schema already provides detailed descriptions for all parameters (e.g., aprx_path includes path constraints, confirm explains mutation). The tool description restates that confirm must be true but adds no new parameter-level information beyond what the schema already covers.

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 ('Remove'), the resource ('a named layer from a map'), and the context ('inside a saved ArcGIS Pro .aprx project'). It distinguishes from siblings like add_layer_to_map or rename_layer by specifying it is for removal and map cleanup before export or packaging.

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 explicit usage context ('controlled map cleanup before export, packaging, or automated project updates') and notes the required confirm parameter. However, it does not explicitly list when not to use it (e.g., for hiding layers use set_layer_visibility) or alternative tools among siblings.

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