Re-arrange layout with AI

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

The description goes far beyond the readOnlyHint/destructiveHint annotations by disclosing the async nature, token-based credit cost, confirm=true requirement, return payload (XML + warnings/score), and fallback to a job_id for polling. This substantially enriches the agent's understanding of the tool's behavior.

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 three sentences with no fluff, starting with the core purpose, then covering async behavior, cost, confirmation, and polling. Every sentence 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's complexity (async job, credit cost, polling), the description fully covers the operational flow, return contract, and points to the relevant sibling tool for status. With no output schema, the description appropriately explains what the agent should expect.

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 both parameters already described (diagram_id and confirm). The description reiterates the confirm requirement but adds no new parameter-level details beyond what the schema's property descriptions already provide, so the schema carries the semantic load.

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 explicitly states the tool re-arranges a diagram's layout for readability, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from editing or updating content by focusing on layout and mentions the async job behavior and return values.

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?

It provides clear context for use: improving layout, async execution, credit cost, and confirmation requirement. It also refers to get_relayout_status for polling when jobs are still running, but it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus other diagram tools.

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