pane_set_layout

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does so well for a mutation tool. It explicitly discloses STATE_MUTATING behavior, that it alters window grid division, and that it creates/destroys chart panes, though it omits auth or rate-limit details.

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 front-loaded and organized under WHEN TO USE, SIDE EFFECTS, and LIMITATIONS, making it easy to scan. It has minor redundancy, including the awkward phrase 'layout grid layout grid' and repetition of layout codes already in the schema.

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 a simple one-parameter mutation tool with a rich schema and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage context, side effects, and layout limitations. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 100%, and the schema already documents the layout parameter with the full code list and aliases. The description repeats the same layout codes and adds no syntax or meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource: changing the chart grid layout, with examples such as single, 2h, 2v, and 4 quad grid. It is clear enough to distinguish from pane_list or pane_focus, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling 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?

Includes a WHEN TO USE section that gives concrete context: configuring multi-chart views for correlated assets or multi-timeframe monitoring. It provides clear positive guidance but does not name alternatives or state when not to use this tool.

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