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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds real substance: it discloses that the entire schema is repositioned deterministically, that container sizes are changed, and how roots are distributed. It stops short of saying whether existing manual positions are lost irrecoverably or whether the change can be undone.

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?

A single dense sentence with zero preamble, front-loading the action before the mechanics and the usage condition. The internal algorithm details (measuring real block height, grid stacking) are close to implementation trivia but still frame the outcome an agent should expect.

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?

No output schema is needed since the tool's effect is visual rearrangement, and the description covers what changes, on what scope, and under what conditions it is worth invoking. Combined with the destructive annotation, an agent has enough to decide and act.

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%, and expectedProjectId already documents cross-project targeting and the refusal-without-change behavior. The description mentions no parameters at all, so it adds nothing beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Rearranges the WHOLE org schema') with an explicit scope qualifier (WHOLE) and concrete outcomes (stack children in a grid, resize containers, distribute roots into columns). The word 'org' distinguishes it from the sibling layout tools (auto_layout_canvas, auto_layout_journey, auto_layout_mcd, auto_layout_process) only by implication, not by naming them, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

'Fits when blocks overlap or after several additions, to tidy the canvas up' gives a clear triggering condition for when to call it. It does not state when NOT to use it (e.g., instead of the narrower auto_layout_* siblings) or any prerequisites, so it is clear context without exclusions.

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