workflowmoves_audit_epk_layout

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

Annotations already establish that this is non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond those annotations: the tool creates a retained background job, requires polling, has no base effect flags, and may have conditional effects discoverable through danceflow_component.

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 short, front-loaded with the purpose, and then moves directly to operational follow-up and effect caveats. The sentences are dense and earn their place, though the effect-flag wording is somewhat terse.

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 asynchronous job model and follow-up tools, which are important for this tool. Since an output schema exists, it need not explain return values. It still leaves gaps around the records input format and when this audit should be preferred over sibling EPK audits.

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 description says the audit consumes supplied layout observations, which gives some meaning to the required records parameter. It also alludes to effect flags, which relates to the permissions object. But with 50% schema description coverage, it does not explain the records string format or fully document the permission flags.

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 verb and resource: audit supplied layout observations and width coverage. It distinguishes the operation from broader EPK audits by naming layout and width coverage, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with audit_epk_evidence or audit_epk_timing.

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?

It gives useful follow-up guidance: the call returns a retained background job and the agent should poll danceflow_job_status. It also points to danceflow_component for conditional inference/download effects. However, it does not say when to choose this tool instead of sibling audits such as audit_epk_evidence or audit_epk_timing.

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