flexsim_layout_line

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the backend restriction, the origin behavior of new objects, and the default spacing, but it does not state whether existing object positions are overwritten, whether the operation is reversible, or what happens if a named object 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 short, front-loaded, and uses a compact Args list. Every sentence contributes useful information: the core action, backend constraint, origin behavior, default spacing, and parameter meanings.

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. The description covers the critical backend constraint and all parameters, but with no annotations it could say more about mutation side effects and failure modes for a tool that repositions existing objects.

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 define the fields, which it does: names in line order, start_x/y/z as the first position, spacing in meters, and axis as x or y. It adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema, though it omits schema constraints such as the minimum of 2 names, maximum of 50, and coordinate ranges.

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 first sentence gives a specific verb and resource: 'Place existing objects along X or Y.' It also adds a backend constraint, but it does not differentiate this tool from sibling layout/mutation tools such as flexsim_create_objects or flexsim_set_node_value, so it falls short of 5.

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 'Place existing objects along X or Y' and the 'window backend only' note, which gives context for when the tool applies. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives like flexsim_apply_shapes or flexsim_set_view, and no when-not conditions are stated.

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