set_page_full_width

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds context about the scope (Collective-wide vs per-user), which goes beyond the annotations. It does not describe side effects, but given the idempotent and non-destructive hints, this is adequate.

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 two concise sentences with no filler. The action and key distinguishing detail are front-loaded, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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 simple toggle tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It explains the scope and the action. The only minor gap is that it doesn't explicitly state the expected behavior of the toggle beyond the boolean, but that is covered in the schema's fullWidth description. The annotations cover safety, so overall it is sufficient.

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 only 33% (only fullWidth has a description). The description does not explicitly describe parameters, but it does explain the Collective-wide nature, which implies the necessity of collectiveId and pageId. This partially compensates for the low coverage, but it does not fully clarify the semantics of each parameter. The parameter names are self-explanatory, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 clear verb ('Toggle') and resource ('a page's full-width layout'), and adds a distinguishing detail that it is a Collective-wide property, not per-user. This differentiates it from per-user settings tools like set_user_settings. It clearly conveys the tool's purpose.

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 explicitly clarifies that this is a Collective-wide display property, not a per-user preference, which hints at when to use it versus per-user settings tools. However, it does not name specific alternative tools or explicitly state when not to use it, so it falls short of full guidance.

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