layout_switch

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

The description explicitly discloses a critical behavioral trait: it 'stops rather than discarding unsaved changes' unless discard_unsaved is set. This communicates a safety mechanism and the destructive consequence of setting the flag. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the burden, and it does so well, though it could be more explicit about affecting the current chart.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary action and then explains the key edge case. There is no redundant or filler content; every word contributes to understanding the tool's behavior.

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?

The description covers the core functionality and the most important safety behavior. It doesn't mention error handling or return values (though no output schema exists), and it doesn't explicitly state that the layout applies to the current chart, but this is implied by the context. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for a tool of this simplicity.

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 input schema already fully describes both parameters (name and discard_unsaved) with clear descriptions. The tool description doesn't add any additional meaning beyond what the schema conveys, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 action ('Switch to a saved chart layout'), the resource type ('chart layout'), and the selection method ('by name or ID'). This is clear and differentiates from sibling tools like layout_list (which lists layouts) and tab_switch (which switches tabs).

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 conveys when to use this tool—to switch chart layouts—and provides context on the discard_unsaved parameter, indicating when to set it (when you want to discard unsaved changes). It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the intended use is obvious from the wording.

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