align_objects

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

The description adds valuable behavioral details beyond the annotations: it explains that alignment uses the actual bounding box (not origin), and it defines the reference parameter behavior (defaults to first object). This goes beyond the destructiveHint annotation by clarifying how the alignment is performed, though it does not mention other potential side effects.

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 concise and well-structured: two sentences, front-loaded with the action, using compact notation for parameters. Every sentence adds substantive information without unnecessary filler, and the structure is easy to parse.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema (though not shown), the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the core behavioral details (bounding box alignment, modes, reference) and provides enough context for a 4-parameter tool. Minor gaps remain, such as the effect on object transformations or whether alignment is relative to the scene, but overall it is complete enough for effective use.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining axis (X|Y|Z), mode (MIN/CENTER/MAX with meaning), and reference (fixed object, default first). However, it does not explicitly describe the required 'names' parameter, leaving its role implicit as the objects to align. Partial coverage of parameters, but not complete.

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 clearly states the specific verb 'Alinea' (align) with the resource 'objetos' (objects), and specifies the scope 'por su bounding box real' (by real bounding box). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like snap_to_anchor or transform_object by highlighting the alignment basis, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 when to use this tool (when aligning objects by bounding box rather than origin) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or comparison with similar sibling tools, making it only minimally adequate.

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