add_layout_element

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'adds' implies a mutation operation, the description doesn't address important behavioral aspects: what permissions are required, whether this affects existing data, what happens on failure, or what the response contains. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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, efficient sentence in Japanese that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the essential information.

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 mutation tool that adds elements to form layouts with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what happens after the addition, what types of elements are supported, whether there are constraints on element addition, or what the tool returns. The context signals show this is a complex operation with nested objects, requiring more comprehensive documentation.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain what types of elements can be added, provide examples of valid element objects, or clarify position parameter usage. The baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('adds an element') and the target resource ('to an existing form layout'), which provides a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'add_fields', 'create_form_layout', or 'update_form_layout', which all relate to form layout 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are multiple sibling tools dealing with form layouts (create_form_layout, update_form_layout, get_form_layout), but the description doesn't indicate when this specific 'add' operation is appropriate versus creating a new layout or updating an existing one.

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