move_items_to_grid_container_by_row

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It effectively discloses key behaviors: auto-positioning ('Automatically calculates next available positions'), dimension handling ('Auto-detected from container if not provided'), and return values ('Success status and final positions of moved items'). It doesn't cover error conditions, permissions, or rate limits, but provides solid operational context.

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 efficiently structured with clear sections: purpose statement, usage context, key features (auto-positioning, dimensions), and return values. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy or fluff. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (6 parameters, mutation operation), no annotations, but with an output schema (implied by 'Returns' statement), the description is quite complete. It covers purpose, usage context, key behaviors, and outputs. It could improve by mentioning error cases or permissions, but it's largely adequate for agent use.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage for 6 parameters, the description compensates well by explaining the role of 'Dimensions' (implied to relate to total_columns/total_rows) and the auto-positioning logic (which involves start_row/start_column). It doesn't detail target_container_id or item_ids, but the context makes their purpose reasonably inferable. The description adds significant value beyond the bare schema.

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 action ('Moves items to grid container') and method ('filling positions row by row'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'move_items_to_grid_container_by_column' and 'move_items_to_specific_grid_locations'. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with these alternatives in the purpose statement itself.

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 'Usage' line provides some context ('Systematic filling of plates, boxes, or other gridded containers'), implying this is for orderly placement rather than specific positioning. It doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. the column-based or specific-location variants, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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