align

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses ordering semantics ('operations run in order, each seeing the previous moves') and the return shape (moves [dx, dy] plus new bboxes), but never states that this is a mutating operation, whether it is reversible, or what permissions/doc_id it requires.

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?

Front-loaded purpose statement followed by one compressed, high-value example and a return-value clause. No filler sentences; every element contributes.

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 nested, multi-operation mutating tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers sequencing and returns but omits the mutation semantics, doc_id/preview meaning, and grouping behavior. Adequate but with real gaps.

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 reported at 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does partially: the example demonstrates the nested operations structure and the ids/to/horizontal/vertical keys, which is not obvious from the top-level schema. It still leaves margin, as_group, text_metrics, doc_id, and preview unexplained.

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 ('Align elements to the page, to each other, or inside another element') and immediately anchors it with a worked example. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like layout, z_order, or move_to_layer.

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 three reference modes (page, other elements, inside another element) imply when the tool applies, and the label-in-a-box example grounds it. However, it names no alternative tool or explicit when-not condition, so the agent must infer the boundary with siblings such as layout or update_elements.

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