Create Layout

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the write/non-idempotent nature is known. The description's added sentence ('write and path restrictions are subject to service capabilities') is vague boilerplate — it doesn't say whether an existing layout is overwritten, what permissions or paths are required, or what side effects occur.

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 short and front-loads the action, which is good. However, the second sentence ('returns verifiable structured results; write and path restrictions subject to service capabilities') is generic filler that adds little value.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but this is a write tool with 8 undocumented parameters and no annotations-derived details restated. The agent lacks sizing/units/page-frame semantics, which are central to creating a layout correctly.

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% across 8 parameters (aprx_path, layout_name, page_units, page_width/height, map_name, mapframe_name, create_map_frame), and the description mentions none of them. With no enum or format hints and no compensation in text, an agent gets no semantic guidance beyond field names.

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 states a clear verb+resource ('Create Layout' / 创建布局), so an agent knows the general operation. It does not differentiate from close siblings such as arcgis_pro_create_layout_from_template or arcgis_pro_create_map, which is the main gap.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus create_layout_from_template, create_map, or layout_upsert_element. No prerequisites or exclusions are given; the agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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