set_node_position

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

Annotations declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description is consistent with that, adding a layout heuristic rather than behavioral facts. It does not disclose whether these positions are display-only and independent of render output, nor whether coordinates are absolute or relative, so it adds little beyond the annotations.

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 purpose sentence is front-loaded and efficient, but the Args section duplicates the schema's parameter description and example verbatim, which is dead weight since the schema already carries it.

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?

A single-parameter, non-destructive layout tool with no output schema is adequately covered: what it does, how to call it, and an example payload. The only notable omission is the manual-vs-automatic layout distinction.

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 the description's Args block repeats the schema's parameter description almost verbatim, including the same example. No extra syntax or semantics beyond the schema's own documentation.

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 concrete verb+resource: 'Set x/y positions for one or more nodes in the DAG', which an agent can distinguish from sibling mutations like modify_node or connect_nodes. It does not explicitly name the closest sibling, auto_layout, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Gives a positive usage context ('Use for manual layout control') and a heuristic (main pipe vertical, branches right), which implies the manual counterpart to auto_layout. However it never states when NOT to use it or names the automatic alternative explicitly, leaving the routing decision to inference.

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