elements_distribute

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, so the mutation profile is already flagged. The description still adds real behavioral value by disclosing that spacing is computed from 'native Inkscape bounds' and that the first and last element are pinned on the chosen axis — a non-obvious outcome. It omits the concurrency/revision guard and the minimum-three-element requirement.

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 tight sentence that front-loads the verb and packs mode meanings plus the endpoint-preservation behavior without filler. Slightly dense, but nothing is wasted.

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 no explanation, and annotations cover the destructive profile. However, for a six-param mutation tool with zero schema descriptions, leaving the revision/workspace contract and the 3-element minimum undocumented is a meaningful gap.

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 carries the full burden, yet it only illuminates two of six parameters: axis ('chosen axis') and mode (edges/centres/gaps). The ids, path, workspaceId, and expectedRevision parameters — including the 3–100 count constraint and the 64-hex revision token — get no explanation anywhere.

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 and resource ('distributes SVG elements') and enumerates the three operative modes (visual edges, centres, gaps), which separates it from a generic transform. It does not name or contrast with the closest sibling, elements_align, so the agent must infer the align-vs-distribute boundary.

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 explains what distribution does but never says when to reach for it instead of elements_align or elements_arrange, nor what prerequisites apply. No explicit when/when-not guidance is present.

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