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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: it doesn't say which shapes move, what the anchor is, whether existing gaps are overwritten, or what the default behavior is when `gap`/`axis` are omitted — significant for a destructive mutation.

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 short sentence with no filler and the key concept front-loaded. However, brevity here is under-specification rather than economy — the sentence could be longer and still earn its place.

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 three-parameter mutation with no output schema and zero schema coverage needs a description that explains axis behavior, gap units, and side effects. The one-liner leaves an agent guessing on all of these.

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 and it largely does not. It hints at `gap`, but never explains that `axis` selects vertical vs horizontal distribution, what units/string form `gap` accepts (string or number), or that `shape_ids` identifies the shapes to space out.

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?

"Set one equal gap between shapes" names a verb and a resource, so the general intent (equalize spacing) comes across. But it never states whether the uniform gap is the supplied `gap` value or a computed one, and it does not differentiate itself from close siblings like `distribute`, `align`, or `snap_to_grid`.

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 instead of `distribute` or `align`, which are the most obvious alternatives for spacing operations. It also omits any prerequisites (e.g. selection state, minimum number of shapes).

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