Arrange plate

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: it is an asynchronous operation requiring polling, and it has a prerequisite '[needs M4b]'. Annotations only provide readOnly/destructive hints, which are consistent (readOnly=false, destructive=false). No contradiction.

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 one concise sentence that front-loads the action and includes critical async polling guidance. No wasted words.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior and completion pattern. The 'M4b' prerequisite is cryptic but not out of place. It is complete enough to avoid major confusion, though it doesn't describe the visual outcome of arrangement.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema carries no burden. The description need not explain parameters; a baseline of 4 is appropriate for a no-parameter tool.

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 'Auto-arrange all objects on the plate' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like auto_orient (orientation) and transform_object (manual transforms) by focusing on automatic arrangement of all objects.

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 gives a practical usage hint ('async job; poll get_job_status until idle'), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as auto_orient or check_placement. Usage context is implied from the name more than explicitly explained.

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