snap_objects_to_grid

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, and the description's 'snap' implies modifying transforms. It adds no further behavioral caution (e.g., whether it irreversibly overwrites positions or works on selection), but it does not contradict the annotations. Given the annotations carry the safety profile, a neutral 3 is appropriate.

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 short bilingual sentences: state the action, then the intended use cases. No filler; the duplicated bilingual content is compact and purposeful.

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 2-parameter tool with fully documented parameters and a mutable/destructive annotation profile, the description is mostly sufficient. It could mention grid origin/anchor behavior or selection default, but the schema already covers the selection default, so only minor gaps remain.

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 both parameters and their defaults are already documented. The description only restates 'given spacing' and does not add syntax or selection semantics beyond the 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 states a specific verb and resource ('Snap object positions to a grid') and immediately gives concrete use cases (tidy placement, chessboard/array origins), which help distinguish it from generic alignment tools.

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?

It provides clear context for when to use it ('用于规整摆放' / 'align chessboard/array origins') but does not name alternatives or exclusions such as when align_objects would be preferred, so it stops at clear context rather than explicit routing.

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