papercanvas_layout

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

With zero annotations the description carries the full burden and delivers real behavioral facts: coordinates are committed to the IR, the revision increments by exactly 1, and cycles are hard errors. Gaps remain around whether existing positions are overwritten, permissions required, and what a revision conflict looks like.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that packs the action, the preset options, the mutation semantics and the error condition with no filler. Every clause 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 an unannotated mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers effects and failure modes reasonably but omits the required `path` argument and says nothing about what comes back (updated IR, new revision value). Complete enough to attempt a call, not complete enough to call confidently.

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 0% and the schema defines no enum for `preset`, so the description's enumeration of linear-h | linear-v | layered is genuinely load-bearing information the schema lacks. However the required `path` parameter is never mentioned, leaving half the surface undocumented in both places.

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?

States a concrete verb+resource ('Arrange nodes') and the effect ('commit the coordinates to the IR'), which separates it from read-only siblings like papercanvas_inspect and papercanvas_get. It stops short of explicitly distinguishing it from papercanvas_patch, which could plausibly also write coordinates.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative is named despite patch/render being adjacent operations. The preset list hints at scenarios but the agent must infer that layout is the right tool after nodes are created or edited.

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