auto_place_module_boxes

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

Annotations already indicate the tool is not read-only and not destructive, but the description adds no additional context about side effects. It doesn't disclose whether existing module geometry is overwritten, whether a model must be loaded, or the scope of changes, which is a significant gap for a mutating operation.

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 single-sentence description is extremely concise and front-loaded, with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool, though its brevity limits the depth of information it provides.

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 mutating nature and six parameters, the description is too thin. It doesn't explain the layout algorithm, default behavior (all modules vs. only those with missing geometry), or any prerequisites. The output schema covers return values, but the operational context is largely absent.

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% with all six parameters documented, so the description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema. The baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the parameter-semantic burden.

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 uses a specific verb 'auto-place' and identifies the resource as 'module view boxes around their member variables,' conveying a clear layout operation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like set_module_view or render_diagram, so while clear, it's not fully distinguishing.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The schema's 'only_missing' parameter hints at a default behavior (placing all boxes) but the description itself doesn't explain when to use it.

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