layouts_push

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

The description details error handling (per-file failures, no abort) and the treatment of non-layout entries, adding beyond the annotations which only indicate idempotent but not destructive. It does not mention if existing layouts are overwritten without confirmation, but the idempotentHint suggests safe re-runs.

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 paragraph but packs essential information efficiently. It front-loads the main action and then details options, error handling, and a recommendation. It is slightly long but every sentence serves a purpose.

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 no output schema, the description adequately covers return behavior (per-file success/failure breakdown) and error handling. It explains the complexity of mixed entries and recommends backup, making it complete for the tool's complexity.

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 already has 100% coverage with descriptions. The description reinforces that target_dir must contain manifest.json, explains the files parameter's behavior when null/omitted, and adds context on relative paths. This adds meaningful nuance beyond the schema.

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 reads manifest.json and .tpl files from target_dir and PUTs each to /layouts/{id}. It specifies the filtering option and behavior for non-layout entries, distinguishing it from siblings like layouts_pull and individual layout operations.

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 guidance on when to use the files parameter versus omitting it, and warns about non-layout entries being captured as per-file failures rather than mis-PUT. It recommends a pre-flight backup. It could be more explicit about when not to use this tool versus alternatives, but the context is clear.

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