Arrange nodes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the mutation profile is covered. The description adds two genuinely useful behavioral facts beyond that — the operation is a single atomic 'undoable step', and the default origin is the nodes' current top-left. It still omits whether unlisted nodes are affected and whether existing positions are overwritten.

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?

Two tight sentences with no filler. The primary action and its options come first, followed by the one-line behavioral note about undo, which is the right front-loading order.

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 4-parameter mutation tool with a nested origin object and no output schema, the description covers layout modes and the origin default but leaves 'gap' undefined and says nothing about how the result is reported. Adequate but with clear gaps for an agent trying to call it precisely.

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% at the top level, so the description carries real weight. It explains the layout enum values, including that 'tree' arranges by links, and gives the origin default, which are meaningful additions. However, 'gap' is never described in either place, and 'ids' only gets partial coverage from the nested item description.

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 and resource ('lay out existing nodes') and enumerates the exact layout modes from the enum, so an agent can match intent to the tool without opening the schema. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling 'move_nodes', which is the nearest alternative for repositioning.

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 rather than stated: the word 'existing' signals this operates on already-created nodes, and 'tree (by their links)' hints at a link-dependent mode. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer move_nodes, and no prerequisites or exclusions.

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