arrange

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does well: it explains packing, centering, per-bed or all-bed scope, rotation up to 90 degrees about Z, and overflow spreading to a new bed with the same settings. It omits some mutation details, such as whether existing placements are overwritten or whether the operation is reversible.

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 front-loaded with the core action, followed by a compact Args section that earns its place by clarifying each parameter. There is no redundant or filler text.

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 tool has four optional parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, so return values need not be described. The description covers the core behavior and all parameters adequately, though it could be more complete about selection scope and side effects on existing bed layouts.

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 0%, so the description must define the four parameters, and it does: bed scope/default, spacing as a millimeter gap, allow_rotate as 90-degree Z rotation, and spread as overflow behavior to a new bed. This adds meaning well beyond the bare schema names and defaults.

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 states a specific verb and resource: arranging objects on a bed, packed and centered. The phrase 'packed and centered' distinguishes it from simpler move/set operations, but it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives such as move_to_bed or transform.

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?

Usage is implied by the purpose: use this to pack and center objects on one or all beds. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not guidance, and no routing to alternatives like move_to_bed, set_bed, or transform.

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