diagram_relayout

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that manual adjustments are discarded, that positions live in the shared store (so all readers see the same picture), and that a layered arrangement is rebuilt. It omits whether the operation is reversible, what permissions are needed, or what the response returns.

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 action is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by supporting rationale about storage and consequence. Three sentences with little waste, though the middle sentence about store-vs-viewer could be tightened.

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?

For a single-parameter mutation with no output schema and no annotations, the description conveys the key effect (destroys manual positions, rebuilds layout) and the shared-store semantics. The only real gap is that what 'uid' refers to is left to inference.

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% and the sole parameter 'uid' is undocumented in both schema and description. The phrase 'a diagram's' weakly implies uid identifies the target diagram, but the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 and resource: 'Recompute a diagram's stored node positions from scratch.' An agent immediately knows this rewrites layout data rather than editing nodes or edges. It does not, however, name or contrast itself with any sibling (diagram_node, diagram_edge, get_diagram), so it stops short of full differentiation.

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?

It gives a clear use case -- 'the fix for a diagram dragged into a mess' -- which tells the agent when this tool is appropriate. There is no explicit when-not guidance or named alternative, but the trigger condition is concrete enough for selection.

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