layout_children

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a genuinely non-obvious behavior (silent no-op when FXHOUDINIMCP_AUTO_LAYOUT=0), which is valuable, but it never says this mutates/repositions existing nodes, whether the layout is reversible, or what happens on failure.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action in one line, followed by the disable condition. The Args block is slightly noisy (ctx is not in the schema) but overall tight.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, so the description must stand alone. It explains the action and the disabled-state no-op but leaves return behavior, spacing semantics, and the mutation's effect on existing positions unaddressed.

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%, so the description must compensate. It at least labels parent_path as the parent network path and spacing as a multiplier between nodes, which adds meaning the schema's bare 'Spacing' number does not, but it omits units, default behavior, and valid range.

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+resource: auto-layout the children of a network node. An agent can tell this manipulates node positions under a parent, though it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from other node-manipulation siblings like move_node or set_node_position.

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?

No when-to-use guidance or alternatives are given. The only conditional stated ('does nothing when auto-layout is disabled via FXHOUDINIMCP_AUTO_LAYOUT=0') is an environment precondition, not usage routing.

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