Create layout

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

Beyond the annotations, which already disclose that this is a non-readonly, non-destructive, non-idempotent mutation, the description adds substantial behavioral context: paper size and margins come from the master and are shared, the layout ID follows subset numbering unless customLayoutNumbering is true, and new layouts are inserted as the FIRST child. It also describes the output shape, including an optional 'ignored?' field. This is rich disclosure for a creation 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?

The description is front-loaded with the core action and every sentence contributes distinct, non-redundant information: master selection, output format, numbering behavior, insertion order, and next steps. Despite its length, there is no filler, and the nested schema references are purposeful.

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, the annotations that cover safety hints, and the absence of an output schema, the description is complete enough for an agent to call it correctly. It explains required context (master, parent), output shape, numbering rules, insertion position, and subsequent actions, leaving no critical ambiguity.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema by explaining that paper size and margins come from the master, how customLayoutNumbering changes ID assignment, and that parent defaults to the Layout Book root. It does not explain doNotIncludeInNumbering or provide additional naming syntax, but overall it adds useful interpretation.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Creates a layout (sheet) in the Layout Book from a master layout, inside a subset (or the Layout Book root).' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_layout_subset, which creates subsets rather than layouts. An agent can identify the tool's core action without opening the schema.

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 provides clear context for choosing a master layout ('pick a master with the wanted size') and points to get_layout_settings and get_navigator_tree for master IDs. It also mentions using move_navigator_item to reorder and documentation tools to place drawings. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or any conditions under which it should not be used.

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