layout_switch

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Switch to a saved chart layout' indicates a state change but does not mention potential side effects such as discarding unsaved changes, requiring existing layouts, or behavior on invalid names. This is a significant gap for a mutation-like 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 a single, front-loaded sentence with zero unnecessary words. It conveys the action, target, and input format in ten words, which is appropriately concise for a simple one-parameter tool.

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 simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the one-sentence description is minimally adequate but lacks context on success/failure behavior, side effects, or prerequisites. A more complete description would confirm what happens to the current workspace and how failures are reported.

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?

The schema description covers 100% of parameters, and its description ('Name or ID of the layout to switch to') largely duplicates the tool description. The description adds no new semantic meaning beyond confirming that the name parameter maps to the layout being switched, so the schema-heavy baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Switch to'), a clear resource ('saved chart layout'), and the accepted input scope ('by name or ID'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like tab_switch or layout_list without needing to inspect schemas.

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 implies the tool is used to change the active chart layout, but it does not explicitly say when to use it versus alternatives like layout_list to find layouts or tab_switch. No exclusionary guidance is provided, leaving usage context inferred.

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