align_visuals

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the modes and tells users to get visualNames from list_visuals, but it does not mention whether the operation is reversible, what session/page requirements exist, or how it affects existing positions beyond the vague 'tidy-up' metaphor. This is adequate but not richly transparent.

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 two concise sentences: the first states the action and enumerates modes, the second clarifies the visualNames source and differentiates from auto_arrange. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

This is a relatively simple layout tool with no output schema and four parameters. The description covers the core operation, modes, and source of visual names, which is enough to invoke it in most contexts. Minor gaps remain around the meaning of reportSessionId/pageName and any side effects, but they are not critical.

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?

The schema already describes mode and visualNames, and the description adds the useful note that visualNames come from list_visuals. However, reportSessionId and pageName are left completely undescribed in both schema and free-text, leaving 50% of parameters without semantic guidance. This partial compensation warrants a middle score.

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 clearly states the tool's action with specific verbs ('Align, distribute or match-size') and the resource ('set of visuals'). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool auto_arrange by describing itself as 'Precise tidy-up on top of auto_arrange', making the purpose unambiguous.

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 phrase 'Precise tidy-up on top of auto_arrange' provides clear context for when to use this tool (after auto_arrange for finer control). It also hints at the prerequisite of listing visuals first via list_visuals. However, it does not explicitly exclude or compare with other layout tools like match_slicer_layout or group_visuals, so it's slightly shy of a 5.

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