Configure omarchy-grid dimensions

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

With zero annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It discloses the primary side effect (overrides grid dimensions on the workspace) and the revert behavior for omitting both params. But it stays silent on what happens to existing windows/cells when the grid is forced, whether the change is persistent or transient, and what occurs when only one of cols/rows is passed. Adequate core disclosure, missing mutation detail.

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?

Two sentences with no waste. The action and example are front-loaded; the reset instruction follows immediately. Every clause 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 simple 2-param mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose and the all-or-none reset. The notable missing piece is partial-parameter behavior (single col or single row), which an agent would likely attempt. Slightly under-specified for a mutation with zero annotation backing.

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%, so the description must compensate. The 'C x R' and '4x4' framing maps implicitly to cols=rows, but the description never names the parameters and leaves a key semantic gap: behavior is defined only for 'both provided' and 'both omitted.' What passing only cols with rows omitted does is undocumented in both schema and description. Partial compensation, clear gap.

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 ('force an explicit C x R cell grid') applied to a concrete resource ('the active workspace') with a worked example (4x4). The C x R framing directly ties to the cols/rows parameters, and the tool reads as distinct from siblings like layout_mode, layout_togglesplit, and layout_order. Purpose is unambiguous.

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?

Conveys the clear trigger for use — forcing a fixed grid — and gives a reset path ('omit both to return to aspect-aware auto sizing') that doubles as a when-not. However, it names no sibling alternatives (e.g., workspace_layout, layout_preselect, agent_grid) and gives no explicit exclusion of when another layout tool should win. Clear context without formal exclusions places it at 4.

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