Save the Host Metrics layout for a host

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false (write operation) and idempotentHint=false. The description adds that it keeps statsConfig.enabledWidgets in sync for owned hosts, which is a non-obvious side effect. It doesn't mention potential errors or authorization requirements, but for a save operation this is adequate.

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 concise, two sentences, and front-loads the main action. It adds a useful detail about the side-effect without being verbose. No wasted words.

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 the complexity (3 params, no output schema), the description does not provide enough detail on what the layout structure should be or what happens after saving. It mentions the side-effect but not the expected return value or failure modes. However, for a simple save operation, it might be borderline acceptable.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description needs to explain parameters. It doesn't mention parameters at all. The schema has 3 parameters (id, slots, columns) but no descriptions beyond types. The description could have explained that 'slots' and 'columns' relate to the layout structure. Since there are only 3 parameters and they are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description does not help, a 3 is warranted.

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 verb ('Save'), the resource ('Host Metrics layout for a host'), and the specific purpose (persists the user's card layout). It distinguishes it from the sibling 'get_host_metrics_layout_host'. The mention of 'for a host' is concrete and unambiguous.

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 implies this is used when saving a layout, but no explicit guidance is given about when to use this versus alternatives, such as when a user wants to update widgets in a different way. It also doesn't specify prerequisites like having a valid host ID. However, the context is reasonably clear from the title and description.

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