figjam_auto_arrange

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden for a mutating tool that repositions user content. It says nothing about whether existing positions are overwritten, whether the move is undoable, how invalid or cross-board node IDs are handled, or the 500-node ceiling (left to the schema). That's a significant gap for a repositioning operation.

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, zero filler, with the capability statement front-loaded ahead of the usage hint. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description is the only place to learn behavior, and it stops short of covering what the tool does not arrange (sections, tables, connectors) or what the result looks like. The fully documented schema compensates for parameter gaps but not behavioral ones.

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 100%, so `layout`, `columns`, `spacing`, and `nodeIds` (with its 500 cap and sqrt default) are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds only a restatement of the layout values; baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific verb (arrange) and resource (nodes on a FigJam board) and enumerates the three layout modes, which matches the `layout` enum exactly. It's clearly distinguishable from sibling figjam_* tools, which all create content rather than reposition it, though it never says so explicitly.

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?

"Use after batch-creating elements to organize them neatly" gives a concrete trigger and implies the workflow position relative to figjam_create_stickies/figjam_create_section. There are no exclusions or stated alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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