pane_set_layout

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It only states that the layout changes but does not disclose whether the existing layout is replaced, whether the change affects the active tab or all tabs, whether it is reversible, or what side effects occur on existing panes.

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 concrete examples and no filler. Every word earns its place.

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 one-parameter setter with full schema coverage, the existing description is nearly adequate. However, the tool performs a mutation and has no annotations and no output schema, so the missing behavioral context—what the layout change actually does to existing panes—leaves the description slightly incomplete for confident invocation.

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 already documents the layout parameter with accepted values and aliases at 100% coverage. The description's examples (single, 2x2, 2h, 3v) are repeated from the schema and add no meaningful semantic detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 clearly identifies the action ('Change') and the resource ('chart grid layout'), and the examples (single, 2x2, 2h, 3v) make the scope concrete. It is distinguishable from workspace-level layout siblings like layout_switch because it explicitly says 'chart grid layout', though it does not name alternatives.

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?

Usage is implied: use this tool when you want to change the chart grid layout. However, no explicit guidance is given about when to prefer this over related tools like pane_focus, layout_switch, or layout_new, and there are no exclusions or prerequisites.

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