Create layout subset

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

Annotations already declare the safe, non-idempotent, non-destructive write profile, so the bar is lower. The description adds substantive behavior beyond that: how layout IDs are composed ([upper prefix][own prefix][number in numberingStyle, from startAt]), the continuation option, and the return shape ({subsetId}).

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?

Dense but front-loaded: the verb and resource come first, followed by numbering mechanics and output. The ID-format sentence is complex but earns its place by documenting the core behavior; little padding.

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 12-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the parent default, ID generation, continuation, the {subsetId} return, and a verification path. The main gap is that the many boolean flags (autoNumber, customNumbering, includeToIDSequence) are left entirely to the schema.

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 goes further by showing a concrete worked example of how ownPrefix, numberingStyle, and startAt combine (A-01, A-02...), giving meaning beyond the isolated field descriptions.

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?

States a specific verb ('Creates') and resource ('a subset (folder with its own numbering) in the Layout Book'), and the numbering feature distinguishes it from siblings like create_layout and create_view_map_folder. An agent can tell what it produces 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?

Provides implied usage via the default parent (root) and a post-creation verification tip ('Check the resulting IDs with get_navigator_tree'). However, it never states when to choose this over alternatives such as create_layout or create_view_map_folder, so selection guidance is only inferred.

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