screenshot_apply_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 burden. It implies a mutation of marketing/screenshots/config.json but never says whether the merge overwrites existing config, is idempotent, requires prior design generation, or what happens on conflict. The file paths add context but not the behavioral traits a mutation tool needs.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the action verb first and no filler. It is appropriately sized, though the parenthetical file-path detail is slightly dense.

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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be described, and the tool has only one parameter, keeping complexity low. However, the mutation semantics, prerequisites, and the meaning of app_dir are all missing, so the definition is only minimally complete for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 0% and the sole required parameter (app_dir) is never mentioned in the description. The description does not compensate with any hint about what app_dir should contain (e.g., repo root vs app subdirectory), leaving the parameter fully undocumented.

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 ("Merge") and resource (the Claude Design store layout / ST0N boards into marketing/screenshots/config.json), which is more concrete than the sibling screenshot_* tools that capture or build. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from close siblings like screenshot_sync or screenshot_build_all, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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 explains the outcome ("so the compositor renders the approved layout for every locale") but gives no when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and never names an alternative among the many screenshot_* siblings. An agent has no explicit routing signal for choosing this over screenshot_sync or screenshot_build_all.

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