arrange_dimensions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses spacing rules, side selection, the unplaced fallback, and the exact verification criteria after moving. It still does not say whether the move is undoable or what permissions/state are required, leaving a small gap for a mutation 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?

The action is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by compact layout rules and the validation criteria. The spacing details are dense but relevant to predicting behavior; a little pruning of parenthetical measurements could tighten it further.

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 geometry-rearranging tool with an output schema, the description covers the operation, placement rules, the unplaced edge case, and post-move validation. It lacks prerequisites such as requiring an active drawing or existing dimensions, but no critical invocation information 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 single optional view_name parameter is already fully documented. The description reinforces its scope (one view versus every view) and confirms the overlap check remains sheet-wide, but adds no syntax or format detail 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 states a specific verb and resource ('Move drawing dimensions') and adds a verification pass ('then check the real result'). It clearly distinguishes itself from insertion tools like auto_dimension_view by describing rearrangement of existing dimensions, though it never names a sibling 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 use case is implied by 'so nothing overlaps' and the post-move sheet checks, but there is no explicit guidance on when to call this versus check_drawing_standards, auto_dimension_view, or analyze_drawing_dimensions. No prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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