apply_custom_layout

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Apply' implies a mutation to the diagram's layout, but the description does not mention reversibility, side effects, prerequisites, or what happens to existing layout elements. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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, direct sentence with no filler. The action and object are front-loaded. Every word contributes to clarity. This is appropriately concise for a simple operation.

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?

The tool has an output schema (not shown) but the description says nothing about return values or errors. It also omits any mention of prerequisites, such as needing to call list_layout_styles first to know available styles. For a mutation tool, this is incomplete: an agent is left without guidance on what to expect after invoking it.

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. It introduces 'named layout style' and 'diagram', which loosely map to the style and diagram_id parameters, but it does not explain what a valid style value is, where to obtain it (e.g., from list_layout_styles), or any format constraints. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the parameter names.

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 action (apply), the resource (a named layout style), and the target (a diagram). It distinguishes from siblings like auto_layout_diagram, which presumably applies automatic layout, and list_layout_styles, which lists available styles. The verb and resource are specific enough to convey the tool's core 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 implies the tool is for applying a specific named style, contrasting with automatic layout, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. It offers no exclusions or conditions. The context of sibling tools (list_layout_styles, auto_layout_diagram) suggests a workflow, but the description itself provides no guidance.

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