align_actors

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and non-idempotent, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real value: 'in one undoable step' and the WARNING that location alignment collapses all actors onto one point, which tells the agent what actually changes on the actors. It does not discuss permission/auth or failure modes beyond the <2 actors error noted in the schema.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then usage and alternative, then the critical warning. Every sentence carries non-redundant information; the pseudo-return line is compact.

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?

No formal output schema exists, but the description supplies a return shape (aligned_count, align_type, reference, aligned_actors). Combined with the sibling disambiguation and the location warning, an agent has everything needed to call this mutation 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description goes further by enumerating the reference variants (first, last, average, named actor) and the effect of each align_type, and it explains the semantic consequence of 'location' that the schema does not.

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 (snap) and resource (two or more editor-world actors) with the exact transform components affected and where the values come from. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling batch_set_actor_transform without the reader needing to open either schema.

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?

Gives concrete use cases (straighten a hand-placed row, share an orientation) and names the alternative tool with the exact condition that selects it ('when each actor needs a DIFFERENT transform'). Also warns about the location-collapse pitfall and what to do instead.

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