Create Layout

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=false, and the description adds that this is an additive creation of a paper-space tab. However, it omits other behavioral context such as whether the new layout becomes active, whether duplicate names are rejected, or whether an open drawing is required.

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 with no filler or redundancy. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it easy to scan and understand.

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 simple one-parameter tool with an output schema, this description is minimally sufficient for basic invocation. However, it lacks context about prerequisites, postconditions, and failure behavior, which an agent might need to call the tool reliably in a real workflow.

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 only parameter, name, is already fully described in the input schema with an example ('A3-Sheet'), and schema coverage is 100%. The tool description adds nothing beyond what the schema provides, so it stays at the baseline score for high schema coverage.

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 verb, 'Create,' and clearly identifies the resource as a 'new paper-space layout tab.' This distinguishes it from related sibling tools such as layout_copy, layout_set_current, and viewport_create, which operate on different aspects of layouts.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus related alternatives, nor any prerequisites such as requiring an open drawing. It does not explain when layout_create is preferable to layout_copy or viewport_create, leaving the agent to infer this from the tool name alone.

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