object_arrange

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It lists operations but does not explain side effects, whether operations are destructive, how input/output paths interact, or what happens when output_path is omitted. For a tool that can 'remove overlaps,' this is a meaningful transparency gap.

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 a single, compact sentence with no filler. It front-loads the main operations, but its brevity skims over important behavioral and usage details that the agent would need.

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?

With six parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description leaves too much unsaid. Most critically, the valid values for kind are not explicitly enumerated, and the relationship between value, object_ids, select_all, input_path, and output_path is not clarified beyond the schema.

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%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds some context for the kind parameter by implying the valid operation categories, but it does not enumerate exact values, and the schema's kind description punts to 'the tool summary' without fully delivering.

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 names a clear set of operations—align, distribute, remove overlaps, and raise/lower stacking order—tied to arranging objects. It is specific enough to convey the tool's general purpose, though it does not explicitly contrast it with siblings like object_transform or object_style.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as object_transform or path_boolean. The description states what the tool can do but gives no context about when it is appropriate versus when a sibling would be better.

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