create_map_layout

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It reveals that the tool reads existing project extent and scale state, but says nothing about what gets created or persisted, what happens if extent/scale are unset, permissions, or whether the operation is reversible.

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 filler or redundancy. It is well-formed, though it is thin for the amount of structured information left undocumented.

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 4-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema documentation, the description is materially incomplete: parameter meanings, defaults (e.g. sheet_size='A3'), and error behavior are all omitted.

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 0% and four parameters exist (name, margin, template, sheet_size), yet the description names none of them. Instead it references 'project extent' and 'drawing scale', which are not even parameters of this tool, so it adds no parameter meaning at all.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create a map-oriented drawing layout'), making the tool's function clear. It does not differentiate from nearby siblings such as create_drawing, create_viewport, or apply_thesis_template, so an agent cannot tell from the text alone which layout-producing tool to pick.

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 phrase 'using current project extent and drawing scale metadata' implies a precondition (set_map_extent / set_drawing_scale must be run first), which is useful implied usage. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no named alternative among the drawing/viewport siblings.

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