auto_arrange

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden, but it does not explain whether existing manual positions are overwritten, whether the operation is reversible, what permissions are needed, or what the tool returns. It only implies mutation via 'lay out' and selection via 'all or selected'.

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 description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately brief and immediately identifies the operation and scope.

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 five optional parameters, a nested origin object, and no annotations or output schema, the description is too thin. It omits behavioral consequences, defaults, and return expectations that the schema alone does not cover.

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 100%, so the parameters are already well documented. The description implies the layout algorithm and sketch selection but adds no syntax, default, or interaction detail beyond the schema.

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?

The description states a specific verb ('lay out') and resource ('sketches'), with scope ('all or selected') and the configurable algorithm. It is clear, but it does not distinguish this tool from the similar sibling arrange_sketches.

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?

It gives no explicit guidance on when to use auto_arrange versus arrange_sketches or other layout tools. The only usage context is implied by 'automatically lay out all or selected sketches,' with no exclusions or prerequisites.

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