create_form_layout

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 '自動生成します' (automatically generates) implies a write/mutation operation, the description doesn't specify whether this requires specific permissions, what happens to existing layouts, whether the operation is reversible, or any rate limits or side effects. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral transparency.

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 Japanese sentence that directly states the tool's function. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration. However, it could be slightly more front-loaded by explicitly mentioning it's for kintone forms (implied by the schema but not stated in the description).

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 creates form layouts with 3 parameters (including nested objects) and no annotations or output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what a successful operation returns, what error conditions might occur, how the generated layout integrates with the existing app, or any dependencies on other tools. The description alone leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's complete behavior and outcomes.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it mentions 'フィールド情報' (field information) which corresponds to the 'fields' parameter, but provides no additional context about format, constraints, or relationships between parameters. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is high.

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 'フィールド情報からフォームレイアウトを自動生成します' (Automatically generates form layout from field information) clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('自動生成します' - automatically generates) and resource ('フォームレイアウト' - form layout). However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'create_table_layout' or 'create_group_layout', which appear to be related layout creation tools. The purpose is understandable but lacks sibling differentiation.

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's no mention of prerequisites, when this tool is appropriate versus other layout creation tools like 'create_table_layout' or 'create_group_layout', or any contextual constraints. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and parameters alone.

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