layout_switch

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It discloses a critical side effect (STATE_MUTATING, reloads charts and indicators) and a limitation (layout must exist). This is strong transparency, though it doesn't cover reversibility or error behavior.

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?

Extremely dense: three labeled sections (purpose, WHEN TO USE, SIDE EFFECTS, LIMITATIONS) with no filler. Front-loaded with the core action.

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 a single-parameter state-mutating tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage trigger, side effects, and a hard limitation. It is nearly complete; only the exact post-switch state (e.g., whether current unsaved changes are lost) is unstated.

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 100% with a single parameter, so the schema already explains the 'name' parameter as name or ID. The description adds no format, case-sensitivity, or resolution-order details beyond what the schema provides.

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 specific verb (Switch) and resource (active chart workspace / saved layout) with clear scope by name or ID. An agent can distinguish this from layout_list and pane_set_layout, which are different operations.

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?

WHEN TO USE clause gives clear context ('transitioning between specialized analytical layouts') with examples. It does not explicitly exclude other tools or name alternatives, but the use case is well defined.

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