arrange

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses that nothing is moved if objects don't fit, the answer reports leftovers and required plate count, unselected objects stay put, and multi-material plates reserve the back-right corner for the prime tower. It does not cover permissions, reversibility, or rate limits, but for a local arrangement operation it is substantially 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 dense but front-loaded, starting with the core purpose and then methodically covering parameters and edge cases. Every clause adds information; however, the run-on style could benefit from bulleted structure for faster parsing.

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 nine parameters, zero schema descriptions, and no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it explains every parameter, the failure behavior, and a recommended follow-up (preview_plate). It lacks explicit sibling-tool routing and any note on permissions/undo, keeping it just short of full completeness.

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%, but the description compensates by explaining all nine parameters: gap units and edge behavior, plate selection semantics, plates modes (0/N/-1), rotate with rotation_step, multi_material meaning, avoid_calibration_area with printer examples, align_to_y, and objects as ids or names. This goes well beyond the bare titles and defaults in the schema.

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 ('Arrange') and resource ('objects') with a precise scope: using real outlines from above including brim ears, to enable nesting. It contrasts with Bambu Studio's convex-hull-only Arrange, though it does not explicitly differentiate from nearby siblings like fill_plate or align_objects.

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?

Provides operational guidance for selecting objects (plate N, named objects, or all), plate spreading modes, rotation, material handling, and calibration-area avoidance. However, it never states when to prefer this tool over siblings such as fill_plate or align_objects, nor any preconditions or exclusions.

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