relayout_diagram

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

The description adds that the operation affects all table positions, which is useful beyond the annotations. However, it does not disclose whether the new layout is reversible, whether manual adjustments are lost, or any other side effects. Annotations indicate it is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and not destructive (destructiveHint=false), but the text could be more explicit about impact.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core action without wasted words. It is appropriately sized for the simplicity of the tool.

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 is too brief to be fully self-contained. It fails to explain the 'diagram' parameter, lacks usage context, and does not describe what a 'fresh automatic layout' entails. Although an output schema exists, the description does not compensate for the missing parameter semantics.

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?

The schema has a single parameter 'diagram' with no description, and the description provides no explanation of what this parameter represents or how to specify a diagram. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate, but it does not, leaving the agent to guess the expected value (e.g., ID, name, object).

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?

The description clearly states the tool's function: replacing all table positions with a fresh automatic layout. The verb 'replace' and resource 'table positions' are specific, and it is distinct from siblings like move_table.

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 is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as move_table for manual positioning. There is no mention of prerequisites, side effects, or scenarios where this tool is preferred.

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