align_shapes

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and non-idempotency, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds useful operational semantics (what each mode does, that offset moves along the target normal), but does not disclose that the move mutates the document, whether it needs an active assembly context, or how it interacts with existing constraints.

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?

Opens with a single front-loaded sentence stating the action, followed by a compact Args block. No filler, though the Google-style docstring formatting is slightly redundant with the structured schema.

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?

Because an output schema exists, return values need not be explained, and annotations carry the safety profile. For a 9-parameter tool the description covers the parameters whose meaning is non-obvious (mode, offset, element/target element pairs), which is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 carries the burden. It clearly defines element/element_index and target_element/target_element_index, and fully specifies the mode enum values (touch=face-to-face with opposing normals, center=coincident centers, axis=cylindrical axes) plus the sign convention for offset. The only gap is that doc_name/obj_name/target_obj are not described, though their titles are largely self-explanatory.

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 and resource: 'Move an object so the chosen element aligns with an element of the target.' An agent can tell this is a positional alignment operation distinct from assemble/verify_assembly. However, it never names a sibling or the broader workflow it belongs to, so differentiation is implicit.

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 when-to-use guidance and no exclusions relative to neighbors like assemble, set_anchors, or verify_assembly. The description dives straight into argument semantics without telling the agent under what conditions this tool is the right choice.

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