elements_arrange

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true, so the description needn't restate that. It adds useful behavioral context: the operation is constrained to same-parent elements and cannot accept arbitrary indexes. But it does not explain the role of expectedRevision (e.g., conflict protection) or any side effects on the document, so some transparency is missing.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the verb and core action. Every word adds meaning, and the exclusionary clause ('without accepting arbitrary order indexes') earns its place by disambiguating the tool.

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?

Given five required parameters and zero schema descriptions, this description is under-specified. It does not explain the purpose of expectedRevision, how to derive ids/path, or what constraints exist on workspaceId beyond the regex in the schema. An agent would need external domain knowledge to call this correctly.

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 compensate. It only clarifies the 'action' parameter's semantics (front/back/raise/lower), and vaguely references 'same-parent SVG elements' for ids/path. It says nothing about workspaceId or expectedRevision, leaving the agent without enough meaning to construct a correct call.

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 states a specific verb ('moves'), a precise resource ('same-parent SVG elements'), and a clear scope (front, back, one step up/down). It also draws an explicit boundary by saying 'without accepting arbitrary order indexes', which differentiates it from reorder-style tools.

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?

The description implies when to use it: whenever you need to arrange SVG elements within their parent. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it (e.g., when arbitrary order is needed), leaving the agent to infer exclusions from the 'without arbitrary order indexes' clause.

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