arrange

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the key constraint that every top-level item and library app must appear exactly once, and that omitted dock/library fields remain unchanged, but it does not state atomicity, reversibility, permission needs, or whether changes go to a draft.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core action, followed by parameter semantics and the critical uniqueness constraint. Every sentence carries useful information without padding.

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?

The output schema covers return values, and the description covers the main inputs and validation constraint. However, for a whole-layout mutation tool with no annotations and no schema descriptions, it should clarify whether changes apply immediately or to a draft and how conflicts or duplicates are reported.

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 add meaning, and it does: pages is explained as row-by-row lists of ids, library as App Library apps, and dock/library omission semantics are defined. The dock parameter's format is only implied by parallelism, keeping it from a 5.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'Set the whole top-level layout at once.' The phrase 'whole top-level layout' clearly distinguishes this from granular sibling operations such as move, place_at, and page_op.

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 implies the right context: use this when replacing the entire top-level arrangement at once. The omission behavior for dock/library further clarifies scope, though it does not explicitly name when to use granular siblings instead.

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