Set Current Layout

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

The description implies a state change (activating a tab) but does not disclose side effects, such as whether the previous layout is deselected, or if the layout must exist. No annotations (readOnlyHint/destructiveHint) are provided, so the description carries full burden but falls short.

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 a single sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise for a simple tool, though it could benefit from slightly more context.

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, the description covers the basic action. However, it omits potential error conditions (e.g., invalid layout name) and does not mention that the layout must exist. The presence of an output schema partially compensates, but the description is incomplete for safe invocation.

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% (the 'name' parameter includes details about acceptable values: 'Model' or a paper-space layout). The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so 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?

The description 'Activate a layout tab' clearly states the verb (activate) and resource (layout tab). It distinguishes from siblings like layout_list and layout_create, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like layout_list or layout_create. The description does not mention prerequisites (e.g., layout must exist) or when not to use it. Minimal usage context.

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