set_visual_position

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It provides useful context by revealing that it updates two underlying representations (visualContainer and config layout) and that all coordinate parameters are optional. However, it does not explain the effect of null values, whether partial updates are allowed, or any side effects beyond the dual update.

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 exceptionally concise, consisting of two sentences that immediately convey the core action and key detail about what is updated. Every word adds value, and it is front-loaded with the primary purpose.

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?

The tool has 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, but the description is relatively brief. It covers the main behavior and optionality of the geometry parameters, but it omits important context such as null handling, units, and whether the tool returns a result. For a mutation tool with this complexity, the description leaves enough unanswered questions to be considered merely adequate.

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 has zero description coverage, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that x/y/width/height are optional and correspond to position/size, but it leaves reportSessionId, page, and visual unexplained. The description adds some meaning beyond the bare schema but does not fully compensate for the lack of parameter documentation.

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 function with a specific verb ('Set') and resource ('a visual's POSITION/size'). It distinguishes itself by explaining that it updates BOTH the visualContainer x/y/width/height AND the config layouts[0].position, which sets it apart from sibling tools like resize_visual or move_visual that may only address one aspect.

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 implies usage for setting or adjusting visual position and size, and the mention of 'so the move sticks' suggests a specific need to persist changes. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like resize_visual or move_visual, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites.

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