Arrange plate

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

Annotations already indicate it is neither read-only nor destructive. The description adds important behavioral context about being an async job and needing to poll a status endpoint, which is valuable beyond the annotations. It does not contradict the annotations and clarifies the execution model.

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 entire description is a single, focused sentence with an embedded instruction. It is front-loaded with the core action and adds the necessary async detail in parentheses. Every word earns its place.

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 tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: what it does, that it is async, and how to check completion. It is a complete specification for this simple action.

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?

There are no parameters, so the schema is empty. The description does not need to explain parameter meanings. A baseline of 4 is appropriate since there is nothing to clarify; the tool's behavior is fully described for a parameterless action.

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 action: 'Auto-arrange all objects on the plate'. It uses a specific verb ('arrange') and resource ('objects on the plate'), and the parenthetical about async job distinguishes it from similar tools like auto_orient by signaling it's a batch operation on 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 provides explicit guidance on how to use the tool ('poll get_job_status until idle') and implies the asynchronous nature. However, it does not explicitly mention when to avoid this tool or discuss alternatives such as auto_orient or transform_object, so it falls short of full alternatives guidance.

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