add_layout

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses one real behavioral trait beyond the schema: part layouts come into existence automatically, so this tool is not needed for them. However, it does not say what name is assigned when none is given, whether duplicate names are allowed, whether the call returns an identifier for later use, or what side effects occur in an open project.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by a relevant caveat. Nothing is redundant and nothing reads as filler.

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 one-optional-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essentials of what is created. It falls short on the outcome: whether the new layout becomes active, how it is named by default, and whether an identifier is returned for follow-up calls.

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% for the single parameter, so the description must compensate. 'Optionally named' confirms the name is not required and is user-supplied, which adds slight meaning over the bare anyOf/string/null definition, but it never explains what happens when name is omitted or what constraints apply to the value.

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: 'Add a custom score layout'. The parenthetical '(optionally named)' clarifies scope, and the second sentence explains an adjacent behavior. It does not compare itself to siblings such as layout_flows or rename_layout, so an agent must infer the distinction, but the core action is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is only implied: the note that 'Part layouts are created automatically with players' hints that this tool is for custom/full-score layouts rather than part layouts, which is a partial when-not-to-use signal. There is no explicit guidance on when to call this versus rename_layout or layout_flows, and no stated prerequisites.

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