optimize_by_usage

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that widgets keep their pages and the dock and App Library are untouched, plus the usage-data fallback order, but it does not say whether changes are immediate or draft-only, whether they are reversible, or whether apply/commit is required.

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 compact and front-loads the main effect, followed by the fallback usage source and untouched areas. The parenthetical fallback wording around screen_time and Screen Time is slightly ambiguous, but there is little wasted text.

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 layout-mutating tool with one parameter and no annotations, the description covers the high-level placement rules and exclusions, and an output schema exists so return values need not be explained. It is still incomplete because it omits the keep_first_page parameter and the draft/apply or reversibility semantics.

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?

The single parameter keep_first_page is never mentioned in the description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The phrase 'earliest pages' does not explain whether the first page is preserved, excluded from optimization, or overwritten.

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 states a specific operation: placing the most-used apps and folders onto the earliest pages and the most-used apps onto each folder's first page. This clearly distinguishes usage-based optimization from sibling tools such as sort_alphabetically and sort_by_color, even without naming them.

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 when this tool is appropriate—when the user wants a usage-ranked layout rather than an alphabetical or color-based one—and it explains the fallback usage data sources. However, it does not explicitly compare against alternatives or state when not to use this tool.

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