align_bpmn_elements

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds crucial destructive-behavior context beyond them: the `alignment: middle` collapse of parallel branches onto a single Y row and the resulting horizontal overlaps. It also prescribes a mitigation (compact=true) and a safer alternative, which is exactly the disclosure a mutation tool needs.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then numbered operations, then the warning. The warning paragraph is long but each sentence (risk, safer alternative, mitigation) earns its place; minor redundancy in re-explaining 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?

For a 6-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the operations, preconditions, parameter interactions, failure modes, and the fallback tool. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds operational meaning: it ties `compact` to the align operation, ties `gap` to distribute and recommends ~50px, and maps the enum values to the align/distribute operations. It goes beyond restating the schema.

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 ('Align or distribute') and resource ('selected elements'), then enumerates the two operations with their axes. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like move_bpmn_element or layout_bpmn_diagram.

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?

Explicitly states the preconditions for each mode (align needs ≥2 elements, distribute needs ≥3) and names the alternative ('Use layout_bpmn_diagram instead to re-arrange the full diagram while preserving branch separation') with the condition that selects it.

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