Arrange network layout

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

The description discloses the repositioning behavior and layout direction (left→right), which goes beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). It adds context about the operation's effect without contradicting 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 with no fluff. The first sentence states purpose and details, the second provides usage scenario, and the third explains the recursive option. Front-loaded and efficient.

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?

The tool has two parameters and no output schema. The description focuses on the action and parameters, but does not mention return value or prerequisites. However, given the simplicity, it is fairly complete for an agent to understand when and how to invoke it.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds operational context by tying parameters to the layout purpose (e.g., 'reposition a COMP's children' for path, and 'each network is tidied on its own' for recursive), providing value beyond the schema.

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 'Tidy' and resource 'network', specifying a left-to-right data-flow layout. It distinguishes from sibling tools (e.g., create, delete, connect) by focusing on repositioning existing 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?

Explicitly says 'Use this to clean up nodes that are piled on top of each other', providing a clear when-to-use. It also explains the recursive parameter for nested COMPs. However, it does not mention alternative tools or explicitly state when not to use it.

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