pane_set_layout

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

Annotations are absent, so the description alone must convey safety and behavior. It only says 'change the chart grid layout' without mentioning side effects, whether it resets existing panes, or if it requires any preconditions.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler.

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?

With one parameter and no output schema or annotations, the description is too minimal to be fully complete. It doesn't explain the behavior of layout changes on existing content, nor what the tool returns.

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 fully documents the layout parameter with all accepted codes. The description's examples ('single, 2x2, 2h, 3v') overlap with the schema but don't add additional meaning or clarify ambiguous codes.

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 clearly states the tool changes the chart grid layout, with examples of layout codes. This distinguishes it from pane_focus (focusing a pane) and pane_set_symbol (setting a symbol), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from layout_switch.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description simply states the action; an agent must infer from sibling names that this handles specific grid codes while layout_switch may handle saved layouts.

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