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

Annotations declare this is a destructive, idempotent mutation, but the description does not add any behavioral context beyond the surface purpose. It does not say that shapes are moved or that their positions change, nor does it warn about destructive effects. There is no contradiction with annotations, but the description adds little.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is terse, but structurally efficient.

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 destructive two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description omits key context: how many shapes are required, what happens to the shapes' positions, and how it differs from 'align_to_artboard'. It leaves an agent with too little operational detail.

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%, yet the description does not mention 'shape_ids' or explain the 'mode' options. 'Shared edge or centre' loosely hints at the mode enum, but it does not clarify parameter meaning enough to compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 gives a specific verb, 'Align', and resource, 'shapes', plus the alignment target, 'shared edge or centre'. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling 'align_to_artboard', so it falls 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'align_to_artboard' or 'distribute'. It also does not state prerequisites like needing multiple shapes selected.

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