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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows this mutates the document, but the description adds nothing about what is altered, whether changes can be undone, or where the 'suggested positions' come from. For a destructive mutation tool, that is a substantial disclosure gap beyond what annotations already provide.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient but under-specified rather than genuinely concise, given the tool's complexity.

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, 7-parameter tool with no output schema and no parameter documentation is described in one sentence that explains nothing about inputs or effects. The description is nowhere near complete enough for an agent to invoke it safely.

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?

Seven parameters with 0% schema description coverage and the description references none of them. Critical fields like 'containment' (with child_id/parent_id, padding, vertical/horizontal enums), 'ignore_pairs', 'target', and 'min_font_size' are entirely unexplained, so the agent must reverse-engineer intent from field names alone.

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 names a concrete verb ('Move') and resource ('misaligned layout children'), which is more than a restatement of the title. However, 'suggested positions' is never defined and nothing distinguishes this from siblings such as align, align_to_artboard, distribute, normalize_spacing, or resolve_overflow.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives are named. The agent is left to infer that this should be called after some inspection step produces suggestions, and to guess how it differs from the many other alignment tools in the sibling list.

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