set_visual_layout

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

Annotations only provide idempotentHint=true. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: it warns that the analysis definition is mutated ('WARNING: This modifies the analysis definition') and that a backup is automatically created before changes, which reassures the agent about reversibility. It stops short of describing permissions or failure modes.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, followed by scannable pattern bullets, then the warning. Reasonsably tight, though the grid-pattern list is somewhat verbose and could be trimmed without loss.

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?

With an output schema present, return values needn't be explained. The description covers the grid coordinate system, common layouts, and the mutation/backup behavior, leaving only minor gaps like permission requirements. Adequately complete for a 6-param tool.

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 goes beyond the schema's bare ranges by explaining the 36-column grid model and mapping column_span values to concrete widths (36, 18, 12), which is genuinely useful context not derivable from the schema alone.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Set the position and size of a visual in the grid layout'), and the resource is unambiguous against siblings like set_visual_title, add_visual, and delete_visual. An agent can distinguish this tool immediately.

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 gives layout conventions (full/half/third width) that imply when to use it, but never states when to use this tool versus alternatives like add_visual or set_visual_title, nor any prerequisite conditions. Usage is inferred rather than explicit.

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