set_layout_size

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that it modifies the layout and saves the project when save=true, and mentions using internal properties layout.pageWidth and layout.pageHeight. However, it does not mention prerequisites (e.g., layout must exist) or potential side effects on layout elements.

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?

Three sentences with clear front-loading: first sentence states action, second gives use cases, third mentions save behavior. No unnecessary words.

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 tool with 5 parameters and an output schema, the description is fairly complete. It covers purpose, usage, and key behaviors. Missing mention of prerequisites like layout existence, but overall adequate.

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% (low), so description must compensate. It mentions page_width, page_height, and save, but omits aprx_path and layout_name. The schema provides detailed descriptions for all parameters, so the description adds some value but not full compensation.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Change the physical page width and height of a selected ArcGIS Pro layout' and provides specific use cases ('switch between sheet sizes, portfolio formats, report pages, or print/export templates'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_map_scale or export_layout_pdf.

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 explicit usage guidance: 'Use this to switch between sheet sizes, portfolio formats, report pages, or print/export templates.' It does not explicitly exclude other scenarios or compare to alternatives, but the context is clear.

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