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

Annotations only say destructive=true; the description adds the operative details an agent needs: it overwrites hand-placed positions, clears manual waypoints, keeps no copy of the previous layout, has no dry run, and can shift other regions as a whole. This is exactly the context that annotations cannot convey.

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-loaded with the layout algorithm, then consequences, then recovery, then exclusions. Dense but nearly every clause carries decision-relevant information; the single long paragraph and the trailing stacking-order list make it harder to scan than it could be.

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?

A destructive, no-input, no-output-schema mutation tool whose description covers side effects, reversibility, refusal conditions and cross-region consequences. There is essentially nothing an agent needs before calling it that is missing.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only 'Takes no input', which is slightly at odds with the schema's expectedProjectId (which actually retargets the project); no format or behavior detail is added beyond what the schema already documents.

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 ('Automatically rearranges all the ERD entities and data-source blocks') and immediately differentiates itself from auto_layout_org, auto_layout_process, auto_layout_journey and auto_layout_canvas by naming what it does not lay out. An agent can pick the right tool without opening a 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?

Gives an explicit trigger ('Handy after a large series of entity/relation additions'), explicit exclusions for the sibling layout tools, and a named recovery path (restore_version) plus a refusal condition (no ERD entity or data-source block). Nothing is left to inference.

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