alinear_objetos

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it says nothing about this being a mutating operation, whether changes persist without guardar, what happens when objetos has a single element (schema allows minItems 1), or what the response looks like. Only the geometric effect is 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?

A single compact sentence with the reference frame front-loaded and the mode list in a trailing parenthetical. Nothing is wasted, though the parenthetical enumeration is slightly harder to scan than a short list.

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 5-parameter mutating tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a nested objetos array that is undocumented, the description leaves too much open: object addressing, prerequisites, and side effects are all unstated.

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 40%, so the description needs to compensate. It does add meaning for modo (mapping the six enum values to left/center/right/top/middle/bottom) and implicitly for respecto ('entre sí o con la diapositiva'), but it never explains the objetos array structure (tipo/indice pairs) or how indice is scoped.

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 and resource (align objects) plus the two reference frames (relative to each other or to the slide) and enumerates the six alignment modes. An agent can distinguish this from mover_objeto or distribuir_objetos by the description alone, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 alignment semantics imply when to use it, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over distribuir_objetos (spacing) or mover_objeto (free positioning), and no stated prerequisites such as needing the presentation open. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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