Layout Builder Create

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two real behaviors: Layout Builder is auto-enabled if it was off, and `lock` is a component lock because no display-level lock exists. However, the destructive implication of 'replace' (existing layout is discarded) and any permission or reversibility requirements are left unstated.

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 core action is front-loaded in the first sentence, with parameter detail following. The enumeration of accepted `layout` shapes is justified given 0% schema coverage, though the phrasing is slightly dense. No filler sentences.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. But for a destructive mutation with nested-object input and no annotations, the description is missing permission requirements and the fact that any existing layout is overwritten — meaningful gaps for a replace-style tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so well for `layout` (three accepted shapes) and `lock`, but `entity_type` and `bundle` — two of the three required parameters — receive no explanation at all, leaving half the parameters undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb and resource with scope: 'Replace the Layout Builder layout for a bundle.' That cleanly separates it from the read siblings (layout_builder_get, layout_builder_list). It does not, however, distinguish itself from the close sibling layout_builder_update, so the create-vs-update boundary is left to inference.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The relationship to layout_builder_update, layout_builder_section_add, and layout_builder_override_remove is never addressed, so an agent cannot tell from the description alone which sibling to reach for in a given situation.

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