save_layout

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

With no annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: overwriting existing workspaces ('Saving over an existing name replaces it') and that saved workspaces appear in get_state. It hints at legacy status but does not discuss potential side effects like requiring certain permissions or error handling. This is sufficient for a save operation but not exhaustive.

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?

All four sentences are packed with unique, actionable content. Opens with purpose, then usage, then behavior, then post-save information. No redundancy or 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 tool with just two parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, alternatives, parameter semantics, overwrite behavior, and downstream discovery via get_state. It is self-contained and requires no further clarification.

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?

Adds critical meaning beyond schema: explains that omitting 'items' snapshots current screen state, while passing 'items' explicitly describes the arrangement. Also clarifies that overwriting happens, which is not in schema. The schema only names parameters; the description enriches the 'items' semantics significantly.

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?

Clear verb+resource: 'save the named window arrangement as a workspace'. Explicitly distinguishes itself from save_workspace by labeling itself as legacy and pointing to the alternative, which removes ambiguity.

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?

Directly states when to use save_workspace instead ('new integrations should call save_workspace') and explains the difference ('can also record whether running apps get moved into place'). Also gives a clear use-case distinction for omitting vs passing 'items' to control snapshot vs explicit arrangement.

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