align_nodes

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

No annotations provided, and description does not disclose side effects, constraints (e.g., does alignment modify only position or also sizing?), or behavior when nodes are not in same parent. The description is minimal and lacks transparency.

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?

Extremely concise at 6 words, conveying the core purpose. However, it could benefit from a brief elaboration on how alignment works. Still, no wasted words.

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 tool with 2 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is insufficient. It fails to explain the effect of different alignment options (e.g., DISTRIBUTE_H vs LEFT) or the meaning of 'relative to each other'. An AI agent may misuse the tool without more detail.

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 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., 'Nodes to align' and 'Alignment type' with enum). Baseline 3 is 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?

Description specifies verb 'align' and resource 'nodes', and adds 'relative to each other' which indicates scope. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tool 'batch_align', which likely performs similar alignment actions.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives like 'batch_align'. No prerequisites (e.g., nodes must be in same frame) or context for using specific alignment types.

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