vizcom_restore_layout

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true. The description adds genuinely new behavior: conflict detection that aborts the restore, and partial-restore semantics that preserve added nodes and sections. It does not say whether the operation is atomic or what a partial failure returns.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the abort condition, then the preservation guarantee. No filler.

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 one-parameter mutation tool with annotations and no output schema, the core semantics are covered, but the origin of journalName and the success/failure outcome are left unstated, which matters for a restore operation that can abort mid-way.

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% and the single parameter journalName is only constrained by a regex pattern. The description's phrase 'MCP layout journal' hints at the value's origin but never explains how to obtain a journal name or what the naming convention means, so the agent must reverse-engineer the pattern.

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: 'Restore positions from an MCP layout journal.' This clearly separates it from siblings like vizcom_arrange_nodes and vizcom_check_layout, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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 implies usage (recovering a prior layout state) and gives a precondition ('stops if any affected node was subsequently moved'), but it never says when to prefer this over vizcom_check_layout or vizcom_arrange_nodes, nor how a journal is produced in the first place.

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