align

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose non-obvious behavior: the `to` target 'stays put', `as_group` 'moves the ids as one block', and `expected_revision` will 'refuse if the document changed since'. It stops short of stating reversibility, permissions, or failure behavior beyond the revision guard, so it is strong but not complete.

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 core action is front-loaded in three words, followed by a terse per-parameter walk-through with no filler sentences. The dense clause-per-parameter style is efficient, though it reads as a reference blob rather than clearly separated guidance.

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 7-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers most of what an agent needs to invoke it correctly, including target semantics and a concurrency guard. It still omits the required `ids` parameter's meaning and the purpose of `show`, and never hints at the return shape.

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 0% and the schema declares no enums, so the description does real work: it supplies the full `edges` value set (left/hcenter/right/top/vcenter/bottom and 'one of each'), the `to` targets, and the meaning of `to_mm`, `as_group`, and `expected_revision`. It leaves `ids` (required) and `show` undocumented, which prevents 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?

The opening 'Align objects exactly' gives a specific verb and resource, and the parameter walk-through confirms the tool repositions objects relative to other objects or the page. It never names the sibling `distribute` (the nearest alternative), so an agent must infer the boundary between the two, which keeps it below a 5.

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?

Use is implied by the enumeration of alignment targets ('first | last | biggest | smallest | page | drawing | selection') and the `to_mm` page-coordinate mode, which sketch out when each mode applies. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or named alternative versus `distribute`/`move`, so guidance stays at the implied level.

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