Places an item at an exact row and column on a selected Home Screen page, keeping surrounding spaces empty while other items shift around it.
Put an item in an exact spot (row 1-6, column 1-4) on a page, leaving empty spaces around it, like dragging it to an empty spot on the iPhone. Other items flow around it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| row | Yes | ||
| page | Yes | ||
| column | Yes | ||
| item_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully states that empty spaces are left around the item and other items flow around it, but it omits important mutation details such as what happens if the target spot is occupied, whether the item is moved from elsewhere, and whether the operation is reversible.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and coordinate constraints. The second sentence adds relevant behavioral context and an analogy without unnecessary repetition. Every sentence contributes to understanding the tool.
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 tool has four required parameters, no annotations, and 0% schema description coverage, so the description needs to be quite complete. While it covers the row/column ranges and layout behavior, it leaves page indexing and item_id semantics unexplained, and it does not describe what happens when placing over an existing item. That is not sufficient for confident invocation.
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 explains the row range (1-6) and column range (1-4), but it does not clarify the page parameter's indexing or range, nor does it explain item_id semantics. This leaves half or more of the parameters under-specified.
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 and resource: putting an item at an exact row/column spot on a page. It also clarifies the resulting layout behavior and grid range. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as move, arrange, or swap, so it falls 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?
Usage is implied through the phrase 'exact spot' and the row/column grid range, which suggests this tool is for coordinate-based placement. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no named alternatives such as move or arrange.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.