penpot_align_shapes

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

With no annotations, the description fully covers behavioral traits: aligns on selrect, group immobility, atomicity, and idempotency. This is comprehensive and adds value beyond the schema.

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 dense but well-structured, front-loading purpose and then detailing behavior. Every sentence adds value, though bullet points could improve readability for edge options.

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?

Behavior is well covered, but the description lacks information about return values, errors, or prerequisites. Given no output schema, some completeness is lost.

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 0%, so the description must explain all parameters. It only explains the 'edge' parameter in detail. Standard parameters like fileId, pageId, shapeIds, tokensPath are not described, leaving a significant gap.

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 verb 'align', the resource 'shapes', and specifies the alignment follows Penpot's own actions. It distinguishes from manual computation and implies a unique value proposition.

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 contrasts with manual computation, providing clear usage context. It does not explicitly list when not to use or compare to sibling tools like distribute, but the intent is clear.

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