arrange_devices

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false with destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this mutates layout without destroying anything. The description adds valuable context beyond that: devices located elsewhere are pulled in, and coordinates are percentages as drawn by Packet Tracer, both of which shape expectations about side effects.

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?

A dense but front-loaded passage: the action and target come first, then the positioning modes. No filler sentences, though it is long enough that a shorter split would aid scanning.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, and the safety profile is covered by annotations. The description covers the mutation's side effect (pulling devices from elsewhere), the required location path source (`list_locations`), and the coordinate model – nothing essential to correct invocation is missing.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds relational meaning the schema lacks – that `columns` and `margin_percent` jointly shape the grid and are only relevant when `spots` is omitted. It also reinforces the percentage semantics of `spots`, which the schema states per-field but not globally.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Lay devices out inside a room, building, rack or table', with the added scope 'moving in the ones that are somewhere else'. This clearly separates it from single-device siblings like move_device and move_to_location.

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 lays out three concrete modes of use – omit positions for an even grid, set `columns`/`margin_percent` to shape it, or supply exact `spots` – which tells the agent how to pick a strategy. It does not explicitly say when to prefer this over move_device or move_to_location, so it falls short of full when/when-not guidance.

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