distribute

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It explains the distribution math but not that this mutates documents, what expected_revision guards against, whether 'show' is a dry-run/preview flag, or whether the operation is undoable — critical for a 7-param mutation tool.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and then branching cleanly on the gap_mm condition. No filler, though the parenthetical enum list makes the second sentence dense.

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 mutating tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits return shape, error/precondition behavior, and the role of expected_revision and show. An agent could invoke it but would be guessing about safety and results.

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 the description compensates well for the core params: axis, mode (with its enum values gap|centers|left|right|top|bottom), gap_mm, and start_mm are all given meaning. But ids, show, and expected_revision — including the preview/safety semantics of the latter two — go entirely undocumented.

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?

Clear verb+resource: 'Space objects along x or y', with the two operating regimes (equal distribution vs. fixed-gap stacking) spelled out. It never names the sibling 'align', so an agent must infer the split from context.

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 two modes are clearly delineated by the presence or absence of gap_mm and start_mm, which is genuinely useful routing information. However, there is no guidance on when to pick this tool over the sibling 'align' (neither tool is referenced), nor prerequisites like revision concurrency.

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