enable_automatic_phone_layout

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not disclose whether the operation mutates the workbook, whether it is reversible, whether it overwrites an existing phone layout, or any permission requirement – all important for a layout-generation action.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately sized for the operation, though its brevity comes partly at the cost of the missing detail noted elsewhere.

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 values need not be explained, but the 0% schema coverage means the description should cover the parameters and basic behavior. It omits both, leaving the agent under-informed for a two-parameter layout action.

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% and the description explains neither parameter. 'Default dashboard objects' loosely hints at dashboard_name, but worksheet_height – a non-obvious tuning parameter with a default – is never mentioned, so the description fails to compensate for the empty schema.

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 gives a specific verb ('Derive') and resource ('a scrolling Phone layout from the default dashboard objects'), making the operation's intent clear. It does not, however, differentiate itself from related siblings such as copy_default_device_layout, so an agent must infer which layout tool applies.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. a dashboard must already exist), and no reference to the sibling copy_default_device_layout that a reader would naturally confuse this with. The agent gets no routing help.

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