Moves specific sketches to explicit canvas coordinates by assigning each sketch ID an X and Y position, enabling precise layout control.
Move specific sketches to explicit positions on the canvas
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| positions | Yes | Explicit position assignments |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for a mutation tool. It doesn't say whether existing positions are overwritten, what coordinate origin/units the canvas uses, whether it acts on the current selection or arbitrary sketches, or whether the change is undoable—significant gaps for a layout mutation.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb and target appear immediately. Nothing redundant is included.
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 mutation tool with zero annotation coverage and no output schema, the definition is too thin—it omits whether positions replace existing layout, canvas coordinate conventions, and failure modes (unknown sketchId). The schema alone can't answer these.
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 100% and each nested field (sketchId, x, y) is already described in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description's 'specific sketches' and 'explicit positions' map to the parameter shape but add no format or coordinate-system detail beyond it.
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 ('Move') and resource ('sketches') with the target ('explicit positions on the canvas'), which distinguishes it from auto_arrange without naming it. Clear enough to identify the operation, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with the auto_arrange/group_sketches siblings.
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 phrase 'explicit positions' implies manual placement versus automatic arrangement, but the description never states when to use this over auto_arrange, nor any preconditions (e.g., sketch must exist, be selected, be in the same workspace). Usage must be inferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.