transform_align

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does not disclose that this is a mutating operation that repositions page items, whether it is undoable, what happens to unselected objects on the page, or whether a document must be open/writable. 'Align' implies mutation but nothing about side effects or permissions is stated.

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 zero filler, which is efficient. It is terse to the point of under-specification for a five-parameter mutation tool, but structurally there is no wasted 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?

Five parameters, 20% schema coverage, no annotations and no output schema – the definition should carry much more weight than one line. It omits operand selection semantics (itemIndices), the document requirement, and any note on mutation/undo, leaving the agent to infer too much.

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 only 20% – only document_id is documented in the schema. The description repeats the relativeTo enum values but adds no meaning for alignMode beyond the raw enum, and says nothing about itemIndices (which items) or pageIndex (which page). It does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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+resource ('Align objects on a page') and enumerates the reference frames it aligns against, so an agent can distinguish it from transform_rotate/scale/flip/distribute. Differentiation from siblings is implied by the verb rather than stated explicitly, keeping it just below a 5.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no pointers to alternatives such as transform_distribute for evenly spacing objects. The phrase 'relative to selection, margins, or page' merely previews a schema enum rather than advising the agent when each choice is appropriate.

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