Update a layout by changing only the specified fields: display name, permalink, HTML wrapper, or text wrapper.
Update a layout. Only the given fields change.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | Display name | |
| permalink | Yes | Layout permalink | |
| html_wrapper | No | HTML wrapper embedding {{{ content }}} | |
| text_wrapper | No | Plain-text wrapper |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It does disclose that only the given fields change, which is a key behavioral trait (partial update). However, it does not mention return behavior, error handling, or any side effects. The description adds some value but is far from comprehensive for a mutation tool.
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?
Two short sentences with zero filler. The purpose is front-loaded, and the behavioral note follows. This is an appropriately concise description.
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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not state what the tool returns, whether it requires the layout to exist, or any error conditions. The partial-update note is helpful, but the agent lacks critical information to invoke and interpret the result correctly.
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 100%, so each parameter is already documented. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; 'Only the given fields change' reiterates that omitted fields are untouched, which is somewhat implicit from the schema. Baseline is 3 because the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 'Update a layout' – a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like create_layout, delete_layout, and get_layout by the update intent. The phrase 'Only the given fields change' adds clarity that this is a partial update, differentiating it from a full replacement. This is a strong statement of purpose.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that it requires an existing layout permalink (implied by schema) or that create_layout is for new layouts. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and sibling list. No prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative routing is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.