cad_layout

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds nothing about permissions, whether deleted layouts are recoverable, whether activating a layout affects the active document/viewport, or how settings apply. The listing of 'delete' alongside destructiveHint=false is worth noting but not clearly contradictory, since deleting a layout need not destroy drawing content.

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 tight sentence with the resource and operation set front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though it spends its words restating the enum instead of adding operational detail.

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?

This is a complex multi-action tool with a nested settings object, conditional parameter requirements, and no output schema. The description covers none of the per-action parameter contracts or return behavior, leaving an agent unable to call configure or rename correctly from the definition alone.

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 carry parameter meaning, and it does not. It never explains that 'name' identifies the target layout, that 'newName' is required for rename, or that 'settings' (with media, scale, device, window, plotType, orientation, etc.) is only consumed by the configure action.

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 names a concrete resource ('paper-space layouts and their plot settings') and enumerates the operations available, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings like cad_layer or cad_block. However, the verb list is essentially a restatement of the action enum rather than an explanation of what the tool accomplishes, and it draws no explicit contrast with related CAD tools.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any indication of which action to pick for a given intent. The six operations are listed but no preconditions, sequencing, or exclusions are given.

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