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

The annotations already disclose the mutation/destructive/idempotent profile, and the description adds the semantic behavior that the centering is optical ('visual centre') against the container's centre. It still omits important behavior such as what happens to multiple shape_ids, how the optional axis changes the result, and whether container bounds or clipping affect the move.

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 single sentence is front-loaded with the verb and goal and contains no filler, so it is structurally clean. It is a bit too terse for a destructive three-parameter operation, but the conciseness itself is strong.

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 mutation with three parameters, zero schema descriptions, and no output schema, the description is not complete enough. It explains the high-level optical-centering intent but not the axis options, multiple-shape handling, or operational effects needed to invoke it confidently.

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 loosely maps 'icon' to shape_ids and 'container' to container_id, but it does not explain the array nature of shape_ids or the axis enum values (both/horizontal/vertical).

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 pairs a concrete verb ('Move') with a concrete resource ('an icon') and a clear goal ('visual centre ... on its container's centre'), so the core operation is identifiable. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like align, align_to_artboard, or measure_optical_center, which keeps it below 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?

It gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and never names related alignment or measurement tools. An agent can infer optical centering as the purpose, but the description provides no routing information to alternatives or prerequisites.

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