elements_align

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

The annotation set only carries destructiveHint=true, so the description adds real value by disclosing that alignment is computed against Inkscape visual bounds and that selected ancestors and descendants are rejected. It is consistent with the destructive hint (alignment mutates positions) but does not elaborate on what state is altered.

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 that leads with the action and target, with no filler. The ancestor/descendant rejection clause is somewhat compressed into the same sentence but remains readable.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and the base purpose is covered. However, for a 6-parameter mutation tool with 0% schema description coverage, nothing explains ids/path selection semantics or the concurrency role of expectedRevision, leaving material gaps.

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% across 6 parameters. The mention of selection/page/coordinate/element merely restates the anchor oneOf const values already encoded in the schema and says nothing about the alignment enum, ids, path, expectedRevision, or workspaceId. With near-zero schema coverage, the description does not compensate.

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 (Aligns) and resource (SVG elements) and enumerates the four anchor targets (selection, page, coordinate, another element), so the operation is concrete. It does not explicitly contrast itself with near-siblings like elements_arrange or elements_distribute, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

Usage is implied by the enumeration of anchor targets, and the rejection of ancestors/descendants hints at a precondition, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of prerequisites (e.g., expectedRevision/workspaceId requirements), and no routing to alternatives such as elements_arrange.

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