layout_create

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description adds genuinely useful side-effect context — it opens a browser tab and refuses to write if the widget/expected ID check fails — but says nothing about what gets persisted on failure, or the tension between a required idempotency_key and idempotentHint=false.

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?

It is a single sentence, so nothing is bloated, but it chains three actions (create, open, save) with a dangling clause about a "new widget ID" that has no schema counterpart, making it harder rather than easier to front-load the main action.

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?

A four-required-parameter mutation with no output schema and only 50% schema coverage needs the description to explain name and idempotency_key semantics and the create-then-save lifecycle. The description gestures at the lifecycle but leaves the undocumented half of the parameters and failure behavior unexplained.

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?

Only target_id and expected_layout_id are documented, and the description merely echoes that a mismatch blocks the write without adding detail. The two undocumented parameters, name (1-200 chars) and idempotency_key (6-160 chars), get no explanation at all — notably the idempotency_key, which an agent would want explained given idempotentHint=false.

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?

"Create a blank saved layout" names a concrete verb and resource, so the core action is legible. But the description then bundles in opening a browser tab and conditional naming, leaving it unclear whether the tool creates, opens, or saves — and it never distinguishes itself from the many adjacent siblings (layout_save, layout_copy, layout_open, layout_get).

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 statement of when to pick this over layout_save, layout_copy, or layout_open, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The only conditional hint ("only after verifying the new widget ID") is an internal sequencing note rather than guidance on choosing this tool.

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