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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses meaningful behavior: a new named arrangement is created, nothing is overwritten, and numbers are untouched. This goes beyond the raw annotations and sets accurate expectations for side effects.

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 compact sentence delivers the action, scope, side-effect guarantees, and a constraint. It is front-loaded and contains no filler.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, safety expectations, and the type of accepted instructions. It is slightly light on alternative routing, but not enough to constitute a real gap.

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 schema already documents instructions as 'What to change, in the user's words', and the description reinforces this as 'layout wishes'. It adds the useful constraint that instructions should not involve number changes, but it does not add extra semantics for estimate_id beyond the name.

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 uses a specific action ('Apply') and a clear resource ('the estimate's page'), and explicitly frames the scope as layout-only via 'layout wishes'. It distinguishes itself from number-changing tools by stating 'no number changes', making its purpose unmistakable.

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 clearly implies this tool is for layout-oriented user requests and explicitly rules out number changes. It does not name an alternative tool for numeric edits, but the exclusion is enough to guide an agent toward the correct use case.

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