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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond them – it does not say what 'moving back' does to shape geometry, whether shrink resizes shapes, or how padding is applied, which is important 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, so nothing is wasted, but it is under-specified rather than concise. There is no front-loaded guidance beyond the bare action.

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, five-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and zero schema description coverage requires the description to carry much more. The agent cannot determine the role of shrink/padding, whether artboard and container_id are alternatives, or what the returned result is.

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?

Five parameters with 0% schema description coverage, and the description mentions none of them. The meaning of 'shrink', 'padding', 'artboard', 'container_id', and the accepted formats for shape_ids are entirely undocumented. Even the boolean 'shrink' has no stated default or effect.

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?

States a specific verb ('Move...back inside') and resource ('shapes', 'frame'), which is more than a restatement of the title. However the schema never uses the term 'frame' – it offers container_id and artboard – so the description and schema vocabulary don't line up, leaving the agent to guess which parameter is the 'frame'. Siblings like fit_to_box and fit_to_children are not differentiated.

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 indication of when to use this versus fit_to_box, fit_to_children, align_to_artboard, or clip_shapes, all of which sound related. No preconditions or exclusions are given.

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