update_page_layout

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It goes beyond the schema by explaining that a result containing blockWarnings means the saved content violates the workspace block manifest, listing example violation kinds and instructing the agent to correct and save again. It does not mention permissions or irreversible side effects, but the disclosed warning behavior adds real value.

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 two sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the action and scope, and the second adds a required confirmation condition and a valuable post-save warning explanation. Every sentence earns its place and the important behavioral warning is included without bloating the text.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core action, the user-confirmation prerequisite, and the meaning of the warning result. It is strong enough for an agent to call the tool correctly, though it could be more complete by explicitly indicating what a successful normal result looks like and pointing to alternatives for block-level updates.

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 the schema already documents each parameter. The description's mention of 'inheritance, overrides, or replace all layout blocks' maps nicely to inheritsLayout, layoutOverrides, and layoutBlocks, which adds slight conceptual framing, but it does not provide depth beyond what the schema already states. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource ('Update page-level layout') and enumerates the three supported modes: inheritance, overrides, or replacing all layout blocks. This sufficiently distinguishes it from block-scoped siblings like update_page_blocks, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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 gives clear context for when the tool is relevant: modifying page-level layout via inheritance, overrides, or full replacement. It also adds an explicit gate ('Only call after the user confirms'), which is useful usage guidance. However, it does not explicitly tell the agent when not to use this tool in favor of a sibling such as update_page_blocks or update_block_content.

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