save_plugin_layout

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

Annotations already declare a non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world write operation. The description adds that the layout is reusable across sessions and shows the coordinate format, but it does not say whether saving overwrites an existing layout, merges with one, or requires the plug-in to be loaded.

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 two short sentences plus a compact example. It is front-loaded with the action and coordinate model, and every element contributes to understanding the saved layout format.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value details need not be in the description. For a five-parameter nested write tool, however, missing plugin identifier semantics, overwrite behavior, and window dimension rationale leave meaningful gaps.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It usefully clarifies the complex controls object via an example and states that coordinates are fractions of the window between 0 and 1, but it leaves plugin identifier format, window_width/window_height semantics, and notes undocumented.

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 action: remembering/saving where controls sit in a plug-in window, with fractional coordinates and later reuse. It does not explicitly name the sibling get_plugin_layout, so the save-vs-retrieve distinction is implied rather than stated.

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 phrase 'Reused on any later session' implies this is for persisting a layout for later retrieval. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no direct comparison to get_plugin_layout.

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