create_mobile_layout

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

Annotations already declare a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent write. The description adds real value by bounding the write ('creates only an M2M mapping, not a full layout or screen'), telling the agent this is a narrow association rather than a structural creation. The '**[Write]**' tag merely restates readOnlyHint=false, and nothing is said about duplicate-link behavior or the resulting record.

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?

Two tight, front-loaded sentences that lead with the action and then the scope caveat. The trailing '**[Write]**' marker is redundant given the annotations and is the only wasted element.

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 simple two-parameter write with annotations present and no output schema, the essentials are covered: what it links, that inputs must pre-exist, and that it is a mapping only. Missing are the identifier format and what happens on a duplicate mapping, which matter for a non-idempotent create.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load. It conveys that both parameters are references to pre-existing objects (a screen and a UI element), which is meaningful semantics, but it never names the parameters or specifies the sys_id identifier format expected by 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 gives a concrete verb and both resources ('Link an existing screen to an existing UI element') and immediately clarifies the scope boundary versus its misleading name: it creates only an M2M mapping, not a full layout or screen. It stops short of naming the sibling (list_mobile_layouts) that would cover the full-layout case, so differentiation is implied rather than explicit.

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?

'Existing' signals the prerequisite that both the screen and the UI element must already exist, which implies when the tool applies. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use routing against siblings such as create_mobile_applet or list_mobile_layouts, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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