align_shapes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the alignment modes, the meaning of offset ('extra distance along target normal'), and notes that offset applies only to 'touch' mode. It also states the return format (JSON with success and Placement). It does not explicitly mention that the operation modifies the document, but this is implicit from 'move'.

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 well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, a compact mode/offset explanation, an args list, and a return note. It is front-loaded with the main action and uses bullet-like formatting for readability. Every sentence contributes useful information without unnecessary verbosity.

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 tool with 9 parameters, 3 enums, and an output schema, the description covers the core semantics (modes, offset, return format). It does not explain element validity per mode (e.g., axis mode requiring cylindrical faces) or index interpretation, but given the output schema, it is sufficiently complete for most use cases.

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 must compensate. It explains element/target_element, element_index/target_element_index, mode, and offset semantics. The remaining parameters (doc_name, obj_name, target_obj) are not explicitly described, but their names are self-explanatory. The description adds value by clarifying the mode and offset behavior beyond the schema's enums and defaults.

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 tool's function: 'Move an object so one of its elements aligns with a target element.' It specifies the action (move), the resource (object), and the goal (alignment). The detailed mode list (touch, center, axis) distinguishes it from sibling tools like assemble or measure_geometry.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool (aligning shapes) and explains the available modes. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like assemble or set_anchors, but the purpose is specific enough to imply appropriate usage. There is no misleading guidance.

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