layout_update

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

The description adds significant behavioral detail beyond the idempotentHint annotation, explaining reversibility and the JSON boundary edge case with literal \uXXXX escapes and refusal of raw U+2028/U+2029 and C0 controls. This is exactly the kind of context that helps an agent avoid subtle failures and does not contradict any annotation.

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 three sentences, each with a distinct role: core purpose, constraints/reversibility, and a niche gotcha with an alternative. No filler or repetition; it communicates dense information efficiently.

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?

It covers the main function, constraints, idempotency, reversibility, an edge case, and an alternative tool. It does not explicitly mention return values or error handling, but given there is no output schema and the operation is straightforward, this is nearly complete.

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 coverage is only 25% (only body has a description). The description deepens understanding of body by explaining decoding/escaping behavior, but site, layout_id, and title receive no added meaning beyond their names. It partially compensates for the low schema coverage but does not fully describe all parameters.

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 explicitly states 'Update a layout' with specific fields (body, title, or both), making the operation clear. It distinguishes itself from the sibling layouts_push by noting the latter is for byte-exact deployment of tracked .tpl files.

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?

It provides clear usage constraints ('At least one must be supplied', 'Reversible by calling again') and gives an explicit alternative for a specific scenario ('use layouts_push'). However, it does not compare with other layout-related siblings like layout_rename or layout_create, leaving some ambiguity about when to prefer this over them.

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