maltego_apply_layout

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

Annotations already indicate idempotency and non-destructiveness. The description adds behavioral details (positions stored and persisted, deterministic) that go beyond annotations, providing useful context about side effects.

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 succinct and well-structured, with an initial action statement followed by key details, then Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no nested objects), the description covers all necessary aspects: action, effect, persistence, re-run guidance, algorithm options, and return type. It is fully complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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 'algorithm' is fully described in the input schema with enum values, so the description adds no new meaning beyond the schema. The return type is noted, but parameter semantics are not enhanced.

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 that the tool computes and assigns (x, y) layout positions to entities on the active graph. This is a specific verb-resource combination, and no sibling tool performs layout, so it distinguishes well.

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 guides users to re-run after adding entities to refresh the layout and notes that layouts are deterministic. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use, the context is clear and sufficient for the tool's simplicity.

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