Place views on layouts

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

Annotations declare write (readOnlyHint=false), non-idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the whole batch collapses into a single undo step, the first target layout is brought to the front unless restoreWindow, and results are returned in input order. Permissions/rate limits are not covered, keeping it off a 5.

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?

Front-loads purpose then item shape then return format in one dense paragraph with no filler sentences. It is a long single block, slightly over-packed for easy scanning, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return burden and does so ('Returns [{guid, layout, source, drawing: {...}} | {error}] in input order'), and it covers source options, defaults, and destination management. Missing only error/permission caveats, so it is nearly complete.

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 coverage is already 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a useful condensed walkthrough of the nested item (source, position, anchor, scale vs ratio, title, pen set, update mode) and routing hints like 'preferably a View Map view', which help an agent grasp the composite structure at a glance, though much of it mirrors the schema.

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 ('Places') plus resource ('views as drawings on layouts') and clarifies batch semantics ('one undo step for the batch'). An agent can distinguish it from siblings like modify_drawings, get_layout_drawings, and create_layout without opening any 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 concrete routing context: source views should preferably come from 'a View Map view from get_databases {includeViews: true}', and target layouts 'Create layouts with create_layout'. It lacks an explicit when-to-use-this-vs-modify_drawings exclusion, so it stops short of the top band.

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