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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond annotations: it does not change the internal layout of other kinds, and overlapping recomputed regions may shift following regions as a whole rather than card by card.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core rearrangement behavior and remains reasonably tight. The second sentence is dense but carries useful side-effect information; no sentence is purely 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?

With no output schema, the description adequately covers the operation's scope, lane behavior, and cross-region shifting side effects. Annotations supply the destructive/read-write profile and the schema fully documents parameters, leaving only minor niceties like return value or idempotency unstated.

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%, with laneHeight, columnWidth, and expectedProjectId fully documented in the schema. The description adds only light context around lane placement (swimlaneOrder) and does not explain the sizing parameters, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: automatically rearranges process blocks into a left-to-right grid, with event-start, tasks, and event-end placement. It clearly scopes the operation to process blocks and swimlanes, making it distinguishable from generic canvas or journey auto-layout siblings.

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?

It gives one usage context: useful after several add_kind_node calls to get a clean rendering. However, it does not explain when to use this tool instead of the other auto_layout_* siblings, nor does it state any exclusions or preconditions beyond the implied process-block scope.

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