align_objects

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose genuine operational mechanics (alignment is computed from outer bounding boxes; distribute anchors on the two outermost objects; both modes may run together), which is real value. It omits side effects: whether positions are mutated in place, whether it requires all objects on the same plate, undo behavior, and failure modes.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by the two mode descriptions in compact order. Roughly three sentences with no filler; even the closing 'Both can be given' is a needed combination rule rather than padding.

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 mutation tool with zero annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description covers the align/distribute value space well but leaves the required 'objects' argument and the return behavior undefined. An agent could call it correctly on the mode arguments yet still guess wrong about what to pass for objects.

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 0% and no enums are declared, so the description is doing the heavy lifting: it enumerates valid align values (left, right, center_x, front, back, center_y) and distribute values ('x' or 'y'), including which axis each belongs to. The 'objects' parameter is never explained (names vs. IDs, whether they must share a plate), keeping it from a 5.

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 (line up) and resource (objects of one plate) and clarifies the axis semantics of align versus distribute. The Bambu Studio analogy and 'by their outer boxes' pin down the operation precisely. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling 'arrange' or 'move_object', which an agent could plausibly confuse with alignment.

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?

Usage is only implied: the description explains what align/distribute do but never says when to reach for this tool versus 'arrange' or 'move_object'. It does add one useful usage rule, 'Both can be given', indicating align and distribute can be combined in a single call, but there are no exclusions or preconditions.

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