begin_edit

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'start (or restart)' implying potential overwrite of an existing buffer but does not detail side effects, idempotency, authorization requirements, or rate limits. Essential behavioral traits are omitted.

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 well structured: a concise one-liner purpose, a list of follow-up tools, a detailed workflow paragraph, and then a bullet-style arg list. It is front-loaded with the most critical information. Slightly verbose due to the workflow example, but each 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?

Given 9 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema present, the description covers the tool's purpose, parameter semantics, and usage workflow comprehensively. It addresses the core use cases (blank buffer, from sample, from device, from device file). The only gap is the lack of behavioral details already penalized in transparency.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, but the tool's argument block in the description explains every parameter: name, columns, rows, accent, mode, row_height, from_sample, from_device, from_device_file. It differentiates between blank-buffer mode and seeding modes, adding significant context beyond the raw schema types.

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's action: 'Start (or restart) the working layout buffer for incremental editing.' It specifies the resource (layout buffer), lists subsequent tools for editing, and distinguishes from siblings by positioning begin_edit as the initialization step in a multi-tool workflow.

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 explicit step-by-step usage: after begin_edit, use add_control, preview_buffer, push_buffer, etc. It also outlines the app-authored wiring flow with concrete examples (from_device_file). However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or contrast with alternatives like load_layout or push_layout directly.

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