cad_layout

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, so the agent knows this tool can be destructive. The description adds the scope of behavior (managing layouts and plot settings) but does not disclose which actions are destructive (e.g., delete) versus safe (e.g., list), nor does it mention side effects like activating a layout changing the current view. It adds some context beyond annotations but not rich behavioral detail.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the action list and resource. It is concise and every word earns its place. It could be slightly more structured by separating the action list from the resource, but it is appropriately sized and readable.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (9 parameters, nested settings object, 6 actions, destructive annotation, no output schema), the description is too thin. It does not explain the relationship between actions and required parameters (e.g., rename requires newName, configure requires settings), nor does it clarify the meaning of the concurrency-control parameters (expectedRevision, expectedDocumentId) or the visualMode options. An agent would need to open the schema and guess at parameter semantics, which is a significant gap.

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 only 33%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. The description mentions 'plot settings' which maps to the settings object, but it does not explain the meaning of parameters like expectedRevision, expectedDocumentId, visualMode, zoomToResult, or highlightResults. The schema provides descriptions for only a few parameters (visualMode, expectedRevision, expectedDocumentId), leaving the rest unexplained. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the 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 states a clear verb set ('Create, rename, delete, activate, configure, or list') and a specific resource ('paper-space layouts and their plot settings'). It distinguishes the tool's scope from siblings like cad_layer, cad_view, and cad_document, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative. The action enum in the schema reinforces the verb list, so the purpose is clear and specific.

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 implies usage by enumerating the supported actions, which gives an agent a sense of when to call this tool (whenever a layout operation is needed). However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives like cad_view or cad_document for related but different operations. The context is clear but exclusions are absent.

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