Arrange network layout

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

Annotations indicate non-destructive behavior. The description adds specifics: 'only moves node positions — it never adds, deletes, or rewires nodes' and discloses the return value (COMP path and count). This provides useful context beyond annotations.

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?

Three sentences cover purpose, usage, and bounds. No redundant words. Information is front-loaded with the primary action and outcome first.

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 simple tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description fully explains what it does, when to use it, what it returns, and its scope (only moves nodes). No gaps remain.

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 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds an example for 'path' ('e.g. /project1 or a container path'), which provides slight additional meaning, but otherwise the schema already covers the parameter semantics adequately.

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 verb 'reposition' and the resource 'COMP's children', and specifies the layout direction (left→right data-flow with sources on left and output on right). It also distinguishes from sibling tools like rebuild_network or repair_network by emphasizing it only moves nodes and cleans up piled nodes.

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 explicitly advises using the tool to 'clean up nodes that are piled on top of each other', providing a clear use case. However, it does not state when not to use it or mention alternative tools for other layout tasks.

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