Aligns two or more shapes on the current slide along a chosen edge—left, center, right, top, middle, or bottom—using the selection's bounding box as the alignment target.
Align 2+ shapes on the current slide along one of the edges (left / center_h / right / top / center_v / bottom). Uses the bounding box of the selection as the alignment target.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| align | Yes | ||
| shape_ids | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it does disclose the one genuinely non-obvious behavior: alignment is computed against the bounding box of the selection. It omits what happens with a single shape, whether the operation is undoable, and what the response is.
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?
Two sentences, zero waste, with the action and its valid values front-loaded and the non-obvious mechanic (bounding-box target) immediately after.
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?
For a 2-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what it does and the alignment reference point. The remaining gap is the optional-parameter default behavior and the return value, which is minor but real.
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 0%, so the description must compensate; it partially does by implying shape_ids takes 2+ shapes and that the target is the selection's bounding box. However, it never explains that shape_ids is optional or what happens when it is omitted (presumably the current selection) - the most consequential ambiguity in this schema.
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 ('Align') and resource ('2+ shapes on the current slide') plus the exact set of alignment edges, which is enough to tell it apart from move_shape/resize_shape/reorder_shapes in practice. It never explicitly names those siblings as alternatives, keeping it just 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?
The '2+ shapes on the current slide' constraint and the bounding-box target imply the operating context, but the description never says when to prefer this over move_shape or resize_shape, nor does it state prerequisites such as an active selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.