update_form_layout

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: the tool mutates form layouts (implied by '変更します'), specifies layout constraints (top-level elements, SUBTABLE/GROUP placement rules), and mentions technical requirements (lookup field width). However, it lacks details on permissions, error handling, or side effects.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence adds value: layout element types, placement rules, SUBTABLE field specification, and lookup field width. No redundant information, though it could be slightly more structured.

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?

Given the complexity (3 parameters, nested layout structure, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is adequate but has gaps. It covers layout constraints and technical details but lacks information on permissions, error cases, or response format. For a mutation tool with no annotations, more behavioral context would improve completeness.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters (app_id, layout, revision). The description adds some context about layout structure (ROW, SUBTABLE, GROUP) and field requirements, but does not provide additional syntax or format details beyond what the schema specifies. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 tool's purpose: 'kintoneアプリのフォームレイアウトを変更します' (changes the form layout of a kintone app). It specifies the verb ('変更します' - changes/updates) and resource ('フォームレイアウト' - form layout), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'create_form_layout' (creates) and 'get_form_layout' (reads).

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 implied usage guidance through technical constraints (e.g., SUBTABLE/GROUP must be top-level, cannot be in ROW; lookup fields need width ≥250). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_form_layout' or 'update_app_settings', nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., needing app_id).

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