Switch layout

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that layout is a persistent state that gates other operations, and that edits fail in run layout. It omits that 'design' may discard existing results (that warning lives only in the schema), and says nothing about permissions or how the switch is reflected in responses.

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?

Front-loaded one-sentence purpose followed by a compact workflow line and a single sharp warning — no filler. Minor redundancy with the schema's enum description, and the critical result-discard caveat is split away from the main body.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the single required parameter is fully covered. The remaining gap is relational: nothing clarifies when to reach for switch_view instead, which matters given how similar the sibling name is.

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 enum values are already richly documented in the schema, including the result-discard warning. The description adds workflow framing but no new meaning about the 'layout' parameter itself, so the baseline 3 applies.

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: switching between the 'run' and 'design' layout modes, and enumerates both target states. It's clear what the tool does, though it never distinguishes itself from the sibling switch_view, which an agent could easily confuse with 'layout' switching.

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?

Gives an explicit workflow sequence (run simulation → extract results → switch_layout('design') → switch_layout('run') only when the run/results UI is needed again) plus a concrete prohibition: never assume set_property works while in run layout after a solve. When-to-use and when-not-to-use are both stated with the triggering condition.

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