Set layout settings

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true; the description goes further by warning that changing paper size/margins on a master propagates to every layout using it, that only supplied fields change, and that unapplied fields are returned in `ignored`. That is real behavioral context beyond the structured hints.

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 core action comes first, then field ownership rules, then the output shape. Every sentence carries information, though the field-routing rules and output spec make it longer than typical.

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 supplies the return shape ({results: [{layout, type, settings, ignored?} | {layout, error}]}), covers the read-back/ignored-fields behavior, and clarifies master-vs-layout field ownership. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly appears missing.

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 already 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds cross-parameter semantics the schema states only in fragments: that margins/size belong to the master, that applyToMaster is required to change them through a normal layout, and that master-only fields exist. Units (MILLIMETERS) are reinforced.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Changes settings of layouts or master layouts') and immediately scopes which fields belong to layouts vs masters. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling get_layout_settings, which it names as the read counterpart.

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?

Gives concrete routing rules: paper size/margins go on a MasterLayoutItem id or a layout with applyToMaster: true, displayMasterLayoutBelow works on master ids only, and read-only fields are deferred to get_layout_settings. It does not state when NOT to use this tool or mention bulk/limit constraints, but the field-routing guidance is explicit.

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