set_layout_size

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool modifies the layout and optionally saves the .aprx project. However, it omits potential side effects, error conditions, or whether changes are reversible. Additional context like permissions or units is not provided.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and objective. No redundant information. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the core purpose, behavior, and key parameters. It could mention what happens on failure or when the layout doesn't exist, but it is sufficiently complete for an agent to use correctly.

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 descriptions exist for all parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by stating how page_width and page_height are used (via layout.pageWidth and layout.pageHeight) and reinforcing the save parameter's behavior. This extra context justifies a score above baseline.

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 explicitly states the action (change physical page width/height), the object (ArcGIS Pro layout), and the specific properties (layout.pageWidth, layout.pageHeight). It differentiates from sibling tools by focusing on size modification, distinct from layout export or layer manipulation.

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?

Provides clear usage context: switching between sheet sizes, portfolio formats, report pages, or print/export templates. Does not explicitly exclude cases or compare with alternatives, but the context is sufficient for understanding when to use.

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