auto_layout

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It does well on the mechanics: largest standard scale that fits unless scale is given, and the effect of arrange_dimensions. It never says the operation overwrites existing view positions or that it needs an open drawing, which matters for a mutating tool.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and dense with meaning; nearly every clause carries layout policy. The opening sentence runs long and packs both placement and scaling into one breath, but there is no filler.

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 3-parameter mutating tool with no annotations, no output schema and no schema descriptions, the description conveys the layout algorithm but leaves the 'main' parameter and the required document state unexplained. That is a real gap against the complexity.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains scale (overrides the auto-chosen largest standard scale) and arrange_dimensions (SolidWorks spaces each view's dimensions evenly), covering two of three parameters, but the 'main' parameter is never mentioned at all — an agent cannot tell whether it takes a view name, index or handle.

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?

Specific verb plus resource: it re-lays out the views of a drawing, with the placement policy spelled out (main top-left, projections beside it, remainder in leftover room). An agent can tell this apart from add_view, edit_view and list_views without opening a schema. It just never names a sibling to distinguish against explicitly.

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 word 'again' hints that this is a re-layout to run after views exist, but there is no statement of when to prefer this over edit_view or manual placement, and no prerequisites such as an active/open drawing. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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