arrange_children

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that bounds default to the parent, but says nothing about permissions, reversibility, how non-auto-layout children are handled, or failure modes for a mutation-style layout operation.

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?

Three compact sentences with the core action front-loaded and no filler. The dependency on distribute_nodes' option set is stated efficiently rather than re-enumerated.

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 5-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema coverage, the description covers the basics but omits allowed values, error/edge behavior, and how it differs operationally from distribute_nodes. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 names and explains the roles of axis ('horizontal or vertical'), mode, gap, and crossAlign, and implies parentNodeId via 'the parent', but gives no allowed values or formats for mode/crossAlign, leaving key semantics to guesswork.

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 ('distribute') and resource ('direct children of a frame/node') and names the axis of operation, so the core action is unmistakable. It references the sibling distribute_nodes but does not clearly delimit the boundary between them, leaving the agent to infer which to pick.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The reference to distribute_nodes implies a shared option surface but never says which tool applies to a selection versus a parent's children, and the only usage hint is 'Bounds default to the parent.'

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