align_instance_to_face

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It clearly discloses the coordinate semantics for each face, the fact that only the perpendicular axis moves, and that other axes remain unchanged. It does not cover persistence, mate effects, or error behavior, but the core operation is well disclosed.

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?

Three short sentences with no filler: purpose first, then a compact face/axis reference, then a key limitation. Every sentence earns its place and the most important constraint is clearly front-loaded.

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 six-parameter operation with no output schema, the description provides sufficient detail to invoke it correctly: what moves, against what, which axes, and what stays unchanged. It omits mention of return behavior or preconditions, but these are minor given the operation's specificity.

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?

The schema already documents all six parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful value by defining what each face enum value means in terms of min/max axes, helping the agent choose the correct face parameter. It also reinforces the roles of source and target instances.

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 ('Position'), a clear resource ('source instance'), a reference ('face of target instance'), and the expected result ('flush'). The face-to-axis mapping makes the intended operation unambiguous and distinguishes it from generic transform tools.

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 clear context: use when a source instance should be placed flush against a specified target face. The statement that only the perpendicular axis moves implies that arbitrary or multi-axis positioning would need a different tool, though no alternative is explicitly named.

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