对齐白板元素

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing behavioral beyond that: it does not mention that geometry is mutated in place, that stale writes return VERSION_CONFLICT (only found in the schema), or any failure modes.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity is achieved partly by omitting information an agent would need.

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, and annotations cover mutability. However, for a mutating tool with a version-conflict hazard and no usage guidance or mode enumeration in prose, the description is too thin to stand as the primary narrative.

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 50%: boardId and expectedVersion are documented in the schema, while ids and mode are not. The phrase '按边缘、中心或间距' loosely maps to the mode enum's edge/center/distribute families, adding marginal meaning, but the 2-200 ids array constraint and required-ness are left entirely to 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?

The description states a specific verb (align/distribute) and resource (two or more elements) plus the alignment bases (edge, center, spacing). It is clear on its own, but does not differentiate itself from siblings such as whiteboard_update_elements, which an agent might confuse for geometry changes.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites (e.g., needing element IDs from whiteboard_inspect), and no note that it operates on existing elements rather than creating them. The agent must infer all routing decisions.

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