Align Objects

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this mutates the document without destroying content. The description adds nothing beyond 'by their UUIDs' – it does not explain what state changes occur, whether prior selection matters, or how the operation interacts with the active artboard.

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. It is appropriately sized for the tool, though 'and/or' is a small ambiguity that a slightly more explicit phrasing could resolve.

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?

No output schema exists, and annotations cover the safety profile, so the burden shifts to the description to convey behavior. For a mutation tool this is minimally adequate: the rich schema covers parameters, but nothing states required document state or how results manifest.

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 all five parameters (including enums and the coordinate_system nuance) are already documented in the schema. The description only restates the UUID input concept, adding no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides. 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?

States a specific verb (align/distribute) and resource (multiple objects), identified via UUIDs. This distinguishes it from siblings like select_objects or modify_object, though it does not explicitly name an alternative. The two behaviors (align and distribute) are named but not separated.

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 versus alternatives such as modify_object or select_objects, and no prerequisites (e.g., needing an active document or pre-existing selection). The 'and/or' leaves the agent to infer whether alignment and distribution are mutually exclusive or combinable.

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