Apply a saved layout profile

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

With no annotations, the description must carry full behavioral disclosure. It discloses two key behaviors (matching by index, pane count compatibility) but does not mention potential destructiveness, behavior for unmatched windows, or error conditions. This is moderate but incomplete.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and no wasted words. The critical constraints are stated efficiently.

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 description covers the essential matching behavior but omits what happens to unmatched windows, whether it creates new windows, the return format, or error handling. Given the tool's moderate complexity, it is minimally adequate but not fully complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema; it only provides general behavioral context that applies to all parameters.

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 tool applies a saved layout profile to a session, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from save_layout_profile, though it does not explicitly differentiate from restore_layout or other layout-related siblings.

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 provides usage constraints (windows matched by index, pane counts must be compatible) but does not explicitly say when to use this tool over alternatives like restore_layout. The context implies usage for saved profiles, but no exclusions or alternative guidance are given.

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