distribute_nodes

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 discloses the mode behaviors (gap, spaceBetween/evenly, center) and crossAlign options, which is genuine behavioral context, but says nothing about side effects, whether it disrupts auto-layout, required permissions, or reversibility for a mutating tool.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then enumerated parameter semantics in a compact block. Dense but no wasted sentences; the bounds coordinate-swap sentence is slightly convoluted but necessary.

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 6-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description covers most parameters and behavioral modes. Gaps remain around side effects and node-type requirements, but an agent has enough to invoke it 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate and largely does: it defines enum values for axis, mode, and crossAlign, and explains the bounds override and its coordinate ordering. It leaves gap units and nodeIds semantics to inference, but the critical optional params are documented.

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 (space/align) on a specific resource (a set of nodes) with a scope constraint (along an axis). It clearly differs in intent from siblings like arrange_children or set_axis_align, though it never names an alternative outright.

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 mode breakdown implies what each option is for (fixed gap vs fill bounds vs center), which is implied usage guidance. It does not state when to prefer this tool over arrange_children/set_axis_align or any exclusion conditions.

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