align

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool 'sequence-aligns and superposes', implying the mobile structure is moved, but it does not disclose side effects, whether the change is permanent, or what the output contains. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but mutation traits are not addressed.

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 two sentences, extremely concise, and front-loaded with the core action. Every word adds value—the verb, the objects, and the usage hint. No fluff or redundancy.

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 simple two-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is largely complete: it tells what it does and the intended use case. It omits any mention of prerequisites (e.g., both structures must be loaded) but these are implicit and low-risk. The output schema covers return value details, so no additional explanation is needed.

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?

The input schema documents both parameters with clear descriptions ('Object/selection to move' and 'Reference object/selection'), giving 100% coverage. The description merely echoes the parameter names ('mobile onto target') without adding extra semantic detail, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool performs sequence alignment and superposition of 'mobile' onto 'target'. The verb+resource structure is specific and distinguishable from sibling tools like 'orient' or 'zoom'. The parenthetical '(use for different structures)' adds valuable context about the intended use case.

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 phrase 'use for different structures' provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool, setting a clear context. It does not mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the instruction narrows the scope sufficiently for an agent to make a correct choice.

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