set_layout_mode

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action 'Switch' implies a mutation but does not disclose side effects, persistence, permissions, reversibility, or any impact on notebook state. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with no annotation support.

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 a single concise sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or unnecessary detail. It is an example of efficient, clear communication.

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?

While the tool is simple (2 params, one enum, no output schema), the lack of parameter descriptions in the schema means the description must fill the gap. It covers the core purpose but leaves 'buffer_id' unexplained. With no annotations or output schema, this is minimally viable but has clear gaps in parameter semantics.

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%, so the description must compensate. It only hints at the 'mode' parameter by naming 'list and grid layouts' but does not explain the 'buffer_id' parameter or how it maps to the notebook. The enum already documents mode values, so the description adds no value beyond what the schema provides.

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 uses a specific verb 'Switch' with resource 'a notebook' and clearly specifies the scope 'between list and grid layouts'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like set_cell_layout by targeting notebook-level layout rather than cell-level, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. It simply states what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and siblings. There is no mention of when to prefer this over set_cell_layout or other layout-related tools.

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