layout_update

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

The description adds transparency by stating the operation is reversible and idempotent, which aligns with the idempotentHint annotation. Since annotations already provide readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, the description confirms and adds context without contradiction.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and includes all necessary details. Every part is informative and there is no waste.

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 tool has no output schema and low complexity (4 params, no nested objects), the description covers the core functionality and constraints. It could mention what the return value is, but the update behavior is adequately described for most use cases.

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 input schema has 25% description coverage (only 'body' has a description). The description compensates by explaining the 'at least one must be supplied' constraint for title and body. It does not add context for 'site' or 'layout_id', but those are common and likely self-explanatory.

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 it updates a layout, specifying the fields (body, title) that can be updated, with the constraint that at least one must be supplied. Among sibling tools, only this one performs updates, making it 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 includes usage guidelines: it notes that at least one of body or title must be supplied, and it states the update is reversible and idempotent. While it does not explicitly list when not to use it, the purpose is clear enough to differentiate from siblings like layout_create or layout_rename.

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