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

The annotations already declare that this is a destructive, idempotent mutation, but the description adds no behavioral context such as what positioning does to existing layout, whether it can be undone, or permission requirements. It also does not contradict the annotations.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. However, it is arguably too terse for a destructive operation with three undocumented parameters.

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?

Given that this is a destructive mutation with no output schema and zero schema description coverage, the description should do more to explain effects and parameters. It states the high-level purpose but leaves an agent without enough context to invoke it safely and correctly.

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%, so the description must compensate for all three parameters, but it only implies shapes and artboards. It does not explain `shape_ids`, the meaning of `vertical`, or how `horizontal` interacts with artboard alignment.

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 clear verb and resource: position shapes relative to their artboard. The artboard-relative scope helps distinguish it from the sibling `align`, which likely aligns shapes to each other, though it does not explicitly name that alternative.

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 implies the tool aligns shapes to artboards but gives no guidance on when to use it instead of `align`, `distribute`, or `fit_to_children`. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative-selection cues.

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