apply_page_layout_update

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits but only mentions a default API preference. It does not state whether the operation is destructive, requires special permissions, is reversible, or what response to expect. The 'preferring SharePoint REST' detail adds a small nugget of behavior but is far from sufficient for a mutation 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 one short sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the primary action and resource, then adds the notable API preference. This is appropriately concise for a tool with a simple schema.

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?

Despite the simple schema, the tool mutates a page layout and has no output schema or annotations. The description fails to explain the workflow (e.g., that a preview ID from preview_page_layout_update is required), what happens after applying, or any side effects. A more complete description would cover the preview-apply relationship and expected outcome.

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, but it provides little detail. 'previewId' is only weakly implied by 'previewed', and 'preferApi' is essentially restated by 'preferring SharePoint REST by default', which duplicates the schema default. It adds minimal value beyond the input schema.

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 uses a specific verb 'Apply' and identifies the resource as 'previewed page canvas layout update', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like apply_view_update. It does not explicitly differentiate from other apply tools, but 'page canvas layout' narrows the scope enough. The mention of 'previewed' also sets it apart from preview-related tools.

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 word 'previewed' implies this tool should be used after a preview operation, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or when not to use it. No alternatives are named, and the default API preference is mentioned but not explained in terms of when to switch. Usage is implied rather than explicit.

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