Save Page Layout

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false (a write) and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds valuable detail: automatic ETag fetching with If-Match, and the critical widgetInstanceId preservation requirement. It doesn't state failure modes (e.g., what happens on ETag mismatch) or auth requirements, but the If-Match mechanism disclosure is genuinely useful beyond annotation coverage.

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?

Three sentences, dense and information-rich. The structure front-loads the purpose and payload format, then adds the ETag/write mechanism and the critical widgetId warning. No wasted words. Could arguably be slightly more structured with the dryRun caveat, but remains tight and effective.

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?

For a mutating whole-document write with no output schema, more detail would help. The description covers the payload shape and concurrency mechanism but omits: behavior on ETag mismatch, whether dryRun is supported and how it behaves, what the response/return value is, and permission requirements. Given 4 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, this leaves meaningful gaps for an agent.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the 4 parameters. The description mentions 'layout' via the Puck payload structure, and that's the primary parameter. However, it does not explain dryRun (boolean defaulting to false), portalRef, or pageRef beyond what the schema names suggest. The field names are fairly self-explanatory, but dryRun's behavior is entirely unexplained, and layout's nested structure is only partially clarified.

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 this tool replaces the whole page layout with a Puck payload, specifying the exact structure (root, content). It distinguishes from other page operations via 'whole-document write' wording. However, the name already conveys 'save page layout' so the added value is moderate, and it doesn't contrast against sibling tools like kilango_update_page.

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 about when to use this tool (whole-document write, replacing entire layout via ETag If-Match) and warns about behavioral consequences (failing to preserve widgetInstanceId causes the widget row to be recreated). It does not explicitly name alternative tools or say when NOT to use this, but the whole-document framing vs. granular block operations is implied by sibling names.

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