tv_layout_save

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

The description discloses that the tool is destructive ('overwrites the saved layout') and clarifies the behavior with and without a name. This adds significant context beyond the destructiveHint annotation, which only flags destructiveness without specifics.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and every word adds value. No redundancy or unnecessary details.

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 simple parameter and annotations, the description covers the essential behavioral aspects (destructiveness, name optionality). It could mention the lack of output or confirm success, but overall it's adequate for a tool with no output 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?

The schema covers the 'name' parameter with 100% coverage. The description adds functional semantics: providing a name triggers 'Save layout as...', which is not evident from the schema alone. This helps the agent understand conditional behavior.

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 states the verb 'Save' and the resource 'current chart layout'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like tv_layout_list, tv_layout_switch, etc., by specifying the action of saving. The additional note about 'Save layout as...' with a name further clarifies the tool's purpose.

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 implicitly indicates use for saving the current layout, but lacks explicit when/not-to-use guidance compared to siblings. It provides a clear context (saving vs. 'Save as'), but no exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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