layout_save

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses that the save is silent, that no Save-As dialog appears, and that the tool verifies the account actually lists the layout instead of trusting the save. This is strong transparency, though it doesn't cover potential overwrite behavior or failure handling.

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?

Four dense sentences with no fluff. The core action and naming semantics are front-loaded, followed by usage context and verification behavior. Every sentence earns its place.

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 single-optional-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, this is complete. It covers the action, the naming pathway, when to call it, and the post-save verification. An agent has enough to invoke it correctly and understand its outcome.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema: it explains that passing the name is what actually names the layout and explicitly contrasts this with layout_create. This reinforces the parameter's role without merely repeating the schema text.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Save the current chart layout'. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from layout_create: 'that is what names a layout, not layout_create'. An agent can immediately understand what this tool does and how it differs from its closest sibling.

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 gives concrete when-to-use guidance: 'Call this after changing symbol, timeframe or studies so the layout keeps them'. It also clarifies where naming does and does not happen by pointing away from layout_create, giving the agent a clear decision rule.

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