Arrange Poietic objects

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose the core behavior: circle lays out nodes and align modes align given nodes, which clarifies what happens to selected objects. However, it does not state that this mutates the design, whether it persists, or whether it is reversible via poeitic_undo, which would be valuable for a layout-changing tool.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, then a compact breakdown of modes. Every sentence earns its place and there is no filler or redundant restatement beyond what is needed.

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 that there is no output schema and no annotations, the description is adequate but not fully self-contained: it explains modes and relies on the schema for parameters, but it omits the mutation/persistence nature, possible return value, and error or prerequisite conditions. This is sufficient for basic invocation but leaves side effects unclear.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some meaning by clarifying that circle can use all or given nodes and that align modes target given nodes, but it does not add format or default details beyond what the schema already provides.

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 clear, specific action: arrange nodes on the canvas, and enumerates the distinct layout modes (circle and align modes). It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, so it loses the top point for sibling distinction, but the verb+resource pairing is unambiguous.

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?

Gives clear context for when to use it: when nodes need to be laid out or aligned, with explicit conditions for circle vs align modes and whether refs are expected. It does not name alternative tools or state exclusions, so it is one step below explicit when/when-not guidance.

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