set_positions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that only specified elements change and others keep positions, and includes an example. However, it does not mention constraints (e.g., coordinate bounds), idempotency, reversibility, or authorization requirements. For a mutation tool with no annotations, more behavioral context is warranted.

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 well-structured: a direct statement of purpose, usage context, a brief workflow, and a parameter breakdown with example. Every sentence adds value without unnecessary verbosity. It is concise but not terse.

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 mutation tool with an output schema (not shown), the description covers purpose, usage, and parameters well. It does not describe return values, but the presence of an output schema likely covers that. The workflow context and parameter explanation make it reasonably complete. A slight gap is the lack of behavioral constraints like coordinate limits.

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 input schema is minimal (0% coverage) with only a generic object array. The description compensates fully by detailing the required fields (id, x, y) with a concrete example, adding significant meaning beyond the schema. It clearly explains the structure and usage of the 'positions' parameter.

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 starts with a clear action verb ('Set') and specific resource ('canvas coordinates for places and transitions by ID'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'move_elements_by' (offset-based) and 'auto_layout' (automatic). The purpose is unmistakable.

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?

The description explicitly states when to use the tool ('after adding new elements or to clean up a cluttered layout') and provides a typical two-step workflow involving 'list_elements'. It explains that unlisted elements retain positions, offering clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives like 'auto_layout'.

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