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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false. The description does not add what gets destroyed, what permissions are required, or how shapes are affected, so it provides no behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 description is one front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. However, it is too terse for a five-parameter destructive mutation, so the brevity reflects under-specification rather than appropriate conciseness.

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, five-parameter tool with no output schema and no parameter descriptions, the definition is not complete enough for correct invocation. Only the core action is stated, leaving key parameter and behavioral details undocumented.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage across five parameters. The description implicitly identifies shape_ids and grid, but says nothing about size, as_unit, or artboard, so it fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 sentence names the verb 'snap', the object 'shapes', and the target 'grid', so the basic action is clear. However, it adds almost nothing beyond the title 'Snap to grid' and does not distinguish snapping from sibling operations such as align, distribute, or fit_to_box.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool instead of align, distribute, fit_to_box, or other layout tools. The agent must infer usage and prerequisites entirely.

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