set_cell_layout

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add valuable details about the coordinate system and the w ≤ 12 constraint, which are not apparent from the schema. However, it does not disclose the mutating nature of the operation, potential validation/error behavior, or what happens if the cell is not in grid mode.

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 extremely concise, containing only two sentences, with the key information front-loaded. Every word adds value: it states the purpose and the essential grid constraint without unnecessary 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?

The description is adequate for a simple layout operation but lacks some context. It does not mention what happens if the operation fails, whether it triggers any side effects (like re-rendering), or whether buffer_id/cell_id must refer to an existing cell in the current workspace. Given the absence of annotations and output schema, this is a noticeable 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?

The schema provides zero descriptions for its 6 parameters, so the description must compensate. It explicitly defines x/y/w/h as integers (clarifying that the 'number' type should be an integer) and imposes the w ≤ 12 bound, which is crucial. The buffer_id and cell_id parameters are reasonably inferable from their names, but the description still leaves some interpretation to the agent.

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 action ('Position'), the resource ('a single cell'), and the mode ('in grid mode'). It effectively distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like set_cell_mode or set_layout_mode, which deal with other aspects of cell configuration.

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 phrase 'in grid mode' gives a clear context for when this tool is applicable, implying it should be used when the layout mode is set to grid. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions (e.g., 'use set_layout_mode to switch modes first'), so it stops short of the highest score.

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