set_lp_section_layout

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It details the valid section keys, the order of operations (order first, then visibility), independence of each operation, the exact result shape including partialFailure, and the condition for throwing. This is exemplary transparency.

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 long but dense with necessary information. It front-loads the main purpose, then covers requirements, valid keys, execution order, and error semantics. Every sentence contributes, no filler.

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?

The tool has moderate complexity with 3 parameters and a nested object, but no output schema. The description compensates by explicitly describing the result shape and partial-failure behavior. It is nearly complete, except it does not enumerate which section keys are in the 'toggleable subset' for sectionVisibility, leaving that detail unspecified.

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 100% and each parameter is described, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds significant meaning beyond the schema: it clarifies the relationship between sectionOrder and sectionVisibility, the independent application of both, and the meaning of the result object. It stops short of enumerating the toggleable subset for sectionVisibility, which is a minor gap.

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 uses a specific verb ('Reorder and/or toggle visibility') and clearly identifies the resource ('landing page's sections'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like set_landing_page_section (which likely edits a single section) by focusing on layout-level reordering and visibility.

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 usage conditions: pass at least one of sectionOrder/sectionVisibility. It explains behavior when both are given and the partial-failure model. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or contrast with other landing page editing tools, so it lacks explicit exclusion guidance.

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