Layout Builder Section Add

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose a non-obvious side effect: 'Layout Builder is switched on if it was off,' plus that it returns the full section list afterwards. It omits permission/auth requirements, which would be expected for a mutation, so it stops short of a 5.

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 paragraphs, front-loaded with the action and then the parameter detail. Every sentence carries information; no filler or restatement of the title.

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 re-explained, and the messy nested `section` object is covered. However, with 0% schema coverage on required top-level params (entity_type, bundle) and no annotations, the definition is only partially complete for a tool with a nested-object input.

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 explains the complex nested `section` object well (layout_id default, components as plugin ids or plugin/region/configuration objects), but leaves the top-level `entity_type` and `bundle` entirely 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: 'Append a section to a bundle's Layout Builder layout.' The verb 'append' cleanly distinguishes it from the sibling layout_builder_sections_list (read) and layout_builder_update, without needing to open either schema.

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?

Usage is implied by the verb 'append' (use it to add a new section), but the description names no alternatives or conditions, e.g. when to prefer layout_builder_update versus adding a section, or prerequisites for the bundle. Guidance is inferred rather than stated.

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