Rearrange every block's position as a left-to-right tree (the canvas auto-arrange), saved immediately — including blocks a person placed. apply_operations positions only the blocks it adds (to the right of the existing ones) and never moves blocks already on the canvas.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| versionId | Yes | ||
| workspaceId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the two behaviors that matter most for a canvas mutation: existing blocks move, "including blocks a person placed," and the change is persisted "immediately." It does not say whether the previous layout can be recovered or what permission level is needed, which keeps it below 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 sentences, no filler, with the scope and persistence guarantee front-loaded before the sibling contrast. The parenthetical "(the canvas auto-arrange)" usefully maps the operation to user-facing terminology rather than wasting space.
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?
With no annotations, no output schema, and only two identifier parameters, the description covers the essential contract: what is rearranged, that it is destructive to manual layout, and that it saves. The remaining gap is the response/verification story and permission requirements for a whole-canvas mutation.
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% for two required parameters, so the schema provides only names and types. The description never mentions workspaceId or versionId, so it adds no meaning about which workspace/version is rearranged or what an invalid ID produces — the compensation burden falls entirely on a description that ignores parameters.
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 ("Rearrange every block's position as a left-to-right tree"), names the resulting layout, and pins down the scope with "every block." It also differentiates itself from apply_operations by contrasting what each one moves, so an agent can pick between them without opening 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?
The second sentence explicitly defines the alternative (apply_operations) and its narrower behavior, which gives clear routing guidance between the two layout-related tools. It stops short of stating a when-to-use condition outright (e.g. "use after adding blocks to tidy the canvas") and offers no exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
