Create Asset Layout

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false and destructive=false, but the description adds substantial context: instance-wide scope, no field edits on update, no delete endpoint, return value including the id, and 422 error behavior with the offending field named. These details go beyond what annotations provide.

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 front-loaded with the purpose, then provides an informative definition, scope, constraints, return value, and error behavior. Each sentence earns its place; despite being longer than average, the length is justified by the tool's complexity (10 parameters and multiple behavioral constraints). No wasted words.

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?

With no output schema, the description appropriately explains the return value and error handling. Combined with the richly detailed input schema and annotations, the agent gets a complete picture of when and how to invoke this tool, including limitations and alternatives. Nothing important is left unexplained.

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 schema already provides detailed descriptions for all 10 parameters, including the note about fields being the only point to supply definitions. The description does not add new parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 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 first sentence clearly states 'Create a new asset layout in Hudu' with a specific verb and resource. It then defines what an asset layout is, and distinguishes it from siblings by noting 'Layouts are instance-wide rather than per-company.' This makes the tool's purpose distinct from company-scoped tools like hudu_create_company.

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 explicitly instructs when to provide field definitions: 'Field definitions can be set when a layout is created; the documented shape for changing them afterwards contradicts the shape creation accepts, so this server does not expose field edits on update.' It also gives an alternative for retirement: 'There is no delete endpoint for layouts — set active: false to retire one.' This is clear when/when-not guidance.

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