smokeball_create_layout

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

The description discloses routing details (JWT, tenant, company scope) but omits critical behavioral information such as side effects, idempotency, error conditions, or response structure. With no annotations, the description should carry the full behavioral burden but fails to do so.

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 short and avoids verbosity, but the inclusion of technical routing details (e.g., '/api/tools/invoke') adds noise without improving clarity for agent decision-making. It could be trimmed to focus on functional purpose.

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?

Despite having an output schema (not shown), the description provides no context about what a layout is, what the operation returns, or how the argument string should be structured. With zero parameter guidance and no behavioral detail, the description is severely incomplete for an agent to use effectively.

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 sole parameter 'arguments' is described only as a 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation' with no further detail. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description does not compensate by listing expected fields, format, or examples, leaving the agent with no understanding of how to populate the parameter.

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 restates the tool name ('create_layout') without explaining what a layout is in Smokeball or what creating one entails. It fails to differentiate from sibling tools like smokeball_update_layout or smokeball_get_layout, leaving the agent with no domain-specific understanding of the tool's purpose.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., smokeball_update_layout, smokeball_add_layout_contact). The description does not specify prerequisites, context, or exclusion criteria, leaving the agent without decision-making support.

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