arrange_design_layers

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses deterministic behavior, safe margin respect, and fresh QA, but does not state mutation effects, permissions, or return format beyond the vague 'fresh QA'.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and then adds two significant behavioral constraints. Every sentence earns its place with no wasteful content.

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?

Despite a complex schema and no output schema, the description covers main behaviors but leaves gaps: no mention of return structure beyond 'fresh QA', no explanation of 'measured text stacking' or 'semantic vertical rhythm', and no clarification of whether the document is mutated in-place.

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 descriptions cover all 4 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds conceptual mapping to the operation parameter by naming the four operation families (alignment, distribution, stacking, vertical rhythm), which helps the agent select the right operation.

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 uses a specific verb ('arrange') and resource ('selected page layers') and enumerates distinct operation types (alignment, distribution, text stacking, vertical rhythm) that clearly differentiate it from sibling tools like resize or autolayout.

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 usage for arranging selected layers and lists supported operations, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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