apply_layout

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses key traits: the necessity of an open editor/extension, and that positions are automatically saved back to the .drawio file. This is valuable context beyond the schema, though it does not mention undo potential or error cases.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core action, followed by a prerequisite, a list of layout options, and a post-condition. Each sentence serves a purpose and the layout list is essential for tool selection. 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?

Given the tool's complexity (multiple layout algorithms, prerequisite conditions) and no output schema, the description covers the essential contextual elements: what it does, when it can be used, what options exist, and the side effect on the file. It lacks detail on potential errors or return behavior, but that is not critical for a layout-triggering tool.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds significant semantic value for the 'layout' parameter by detailing each enum option's use case (e.g., 'hierarchical' for flowcharts, 'organic' for force-directed). This goes beyond the schema's minimal 'Layout algorithm to apply' and helps the agent choose correctly.

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 the tool's function: 'Trigger a draw.io built-in automatic layout algorithm on the diagram.' It uses a specific verb ('trigger') and resource ('draw.io layout algorithm'), distinguishing it from siblings like check_layout, which checks rather than applies a layout.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool, including a prerequisite (diagram must be open with companion extension) and guidance on which layout to choose for different diagram types. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or name alternative tools, so it stops short of full 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.