layout_flows

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one genuinely useful trait: Dorico does not expose a layout's flows for read-back, so state cannot be verified before or after the call. However, the core mutation semantics are left ambiguous — it never says whether flow_ids replaces the full membership set or is merged with existing flows, and no permissions or error behavior are described.

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?

One sentence plus a parenthetical, front-loaded with the action and followed by the caveat. Nothing is padded, though the parenthetical is doing work that a fuller parameter note should have carried.

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 three parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema descriptions, the definition is thin but does surface the key non-obvious constraint (no read-back). It still lacks the replace-vs-merge semantics needed to call it correctly, which is the largest remaining gap.

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%, so the description must compensate and it largely does not: layout_id, flow_ids, and include are never named or explained. The prose only loosely maps 'include or exclude' to the include boolean and 'flows in a layout' to the other two, without clarifying whether include=true adds those specific flows or defines the complete set, which is the exact ambiguity that matters here.

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 pair ('include or exclude') against a specific resource ('flows in a layout'), so the operation is immediately legible. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as add_flow, but the resource scope is clear enough to separate the two by inference.

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: an agent can infer it should call this when changing which flows belong to a layout. There is no explicit when-not guidance, no mention of add_flow/delete_flow as alternatives, and no stated prerequisites such as the layout or flows having to already exist.

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