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

Annotations already disclose readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds that shapes are repositioned evenly and that at least three are involved, but it does not explain what is destroyed or how existing positions change.

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. Every word contributes to the stated operation, and there is no redundant restatement of the title or schema.

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 simple two-parameter tool, the description establishes the core action and minimum shape count. However, it omits the axis dimension and does not clarify movement/destruction behavior beyond the annotations, so it is only minimally complete.

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 carry parameter meaning. It indirectly conveys that shape_ids should contain at least three shapes, but it never mentions the required axis parameter or the horizontal/vertical options, leaving one of two parameters undocumented in prose.

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: space shapes evenly. It also includes the important minimum-count condition of three or more shapes. It does not distinguish the tool from siblings such as align or normalize_spacing, 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?

The phrase 'three or more shapes' implies when the tool applies and gives a minimum input threshold. However, it gives no explicit when-not guidance and does not name alternatives such as align, normalize_spacing, or scatter.

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