Layout Builder Override Remove

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose meaningful behavior: the revert clears the entity's layout_builder__layout field via OverridesSectionStorage, and it documents the dual remove/list mode. It omits irreversibility/permission requirements, but the storage mechanism and dual mode are genuinely useful context beyond the schema.

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?

Front-loads the action in the first sentence, then adds usage and mechanism in clearly separated short paragraphs. The final paragraph about OverridesSectionStorage is slightly deep but earns its place by preempting a common misconception.

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 needn't be described, and the description covers the interaction model and storage mechanism. What remains thin is guidance for the required entity_type/bundle inputs and any permission/isolation caveats for a mutating operation.

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 compensate. It explains entity_id well ('for a node, its nid') and its omit-to-list semantics, but entity_type and bundle are two required parameters left completely unexplained in both schema and description.

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 ('Remove') and resource ('Layout Builder override'), plus the effect ('falls back to the default'). It explicitly distinguishes this from adjacent concepts by noting overrides are not config and cannot be read from entity_view_display, which separates it from config_get/entity_view_display siblings.

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?

Gives clear conditional guidance: pass entity_id to revert one entity, omit it to list overrides, and states the listing is a prerequisite for picking one. It does not explicitly say when NOT to use this versus layout_builder_update or the other layout_builder_* siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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