close_gaps

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a mutation of layout state but doesn't say whether the change is reversible (an undo sibling exists), whether items are repositioned, or whether unplaced items are affected. With zero annotation coverage for a write operation, this is a substantial gap.

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?

One short sentence with the effect front-loaded and the parenthetical clarification immediately after; there is no filler. The brevity is appropriate, though it edges toward under-specification rather than tightness.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, an undocumented required parameter, and no output description needed (an output schema exists) still leaves the agent without the state-changing and targeting information it needs. Given the crowded sibling set of layout operations, the description is too thin to call this correctly.

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 for the single item_ids parameter, and it does not — it never mentions that the operation targets a specific list of items or what those IDs refer to. An agent cannot tell from the description whether it passes all placed items, only the gapped ones, or something else.

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 an effect ('let placed items flow ... removes their gaps'), which is a recognizable verb+resource combination, but 'gaps' is domain jargon that isn't defined and the phrasing is metaphorical rather than operational. It also does nothing to distinguish this from siblings like remove_empty or arrange, which an agent could easily confuse with it.

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?

There is no indication of when to call this versus remove_empty, arrange, sort_alphabetically, or place_at, all of which plausibly touch layout spacing. No prerequisites, no state requirements, and no mention of whether it should follow a place_at or precede an apply.

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