Assemble arrangement

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It mentions the regions prerequisite and mode options but does not disclose mutation side effects, permissions, reversibility, or what happens to existing arrangements.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. The core action, source, and modes are stated immediately, and the parenthetical prerequisite is efficiently placed.

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 description covers the high-level purpose and a key dependency, but for a 6-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, it omits enough behavioral context (e.g., side effects, interaction with existing arrangements) that an agent might need to call 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds a prerequisite about regions but no additional syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides, making baseline 3 appropriate.

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 ('Builds') and resource ('arrangement'), and clarifies the source material ('project's regions') and selection mode. It also names a sibling tool (auto_edit) as a source of required regions, but does not explicitly distinguish itself from other arrangement-related siblings like place_clip.

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?

Provides a key prerequisite: 'requires regions - e.g. from auto_edit', which implies usage context. However, it does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it include exclusions or explicit when-not guidance.

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