structure

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses useful semantics for pop_out, z-order operations, reparent keeping visual position, and group optional fields, but omits the destructive nature of delete, reversibility, permissions, and expected_revision concurrency behavior.

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 purpose is front-loaded in one short sentence, followed by a dense pipe-delimited op list. It is efficient with little waste, though the packed notation is slightly hard to scan.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. But with no annotations, seven parameters, 0% schema descriptions, and no mention of required target ids, expected_revision, or mutation safety, the description is not complete enough for all supported operations.

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 description adds substantial meaning for the critical op parameter plus op-specific parameters like parent, index, new_id, and label. However, it leaves the required ids parameter and expected_revision unexplained, so compensation is incomplete.

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 operation family, 'Rearrange objects,' and enumerates concrete ops such as group, ungroup, reparent, and z-order changes. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like move, align, or distribute, so sibling differentiation is not fully addressed.

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 no when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives; it only lists operation names. An agent must infer that grouping, z-ordering, and reparenting belong here rather than in move or align.

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