generate_layout_yaml

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the file-write side effect and the ordering dependency on add_dashboard, plus that ascii_preview is required for user confirmation, but omits overwrite behavior, path/permission requirements, and what happens if the file already exists.

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?

Front-loads the purpose, then presents a compact numbered workflow where every step earns its place. The closing note on the shared DSL is useful rather than padding.

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 needn't be explained, and the workflow dependencies are covered. But for a 3-required-param tool with a nested, undocumented layout_tree object, the description gives only a pointer ('same DSL as generate_layout_json') rather than enough to construct the tree.

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 compensate. It gives partial meaning for all three: layout_tree references the generate_layout_json DSL, ascii_preview is tied to confirmation, and output_path is the <this_file_path> consumed by add_dashboard. However, no format or structure details are provided for the nested layout_tree or the path.

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 verb+resource ('Generate and save a dashboard layout YAML file') and explicitly contrasts with the sibling generate_layout_json by noting they share the same container DSL. It's clear what the tool produces, though it stops short of stating when YAML should be preferred over the JSON variant.

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?

Provides an explicit numbered workflow placing this tool between list_worksheets and add_dashboard, which is strong when-to-use guidance and names the downstream consumer (add_dashboard with layout=<this_file_path>). It lacks an explicit exclusion or rule for choosing YAML vs the JSON sibling.

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