align_shapes

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'relative to each other or to a selection bounds' but is ambiguous about what 'selection bounds' refers to, given no parameter for it. It doesn't state that shapes will be moved, or any side effects. The description contradicts the schema by referencing 'selection bounds' which isn't a parameter, adding confusion.

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 a single, succinct sentence that front-loads the core purpose. Every word contributes to the meaning without redundancy. It's appropriately concise for a tool with a self-explanatory schema.

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 the tool performs mutation (moving shapes) and has no annotations or output schema, the description is too sparse. It fails to explain the effect on shapes, what 'selection bounds' means, or how the alignment types map to behavior. The ambiguous reference to a non-existent parameter leaves the agent with an incomplete model of the tool's operation.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal semantics beyond the schema, merely reinforcing that multiple shapes are involved. It doesn't clarify the role of each parameter or the meaning of 'selection bounds' relative to the alignment parameter. Thus, it meets the baseline but doesn't exceed it.

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's function: aligning multiple shapes. It specifies the action ('Align') and the resource ('multiple shapes'), and distinguishes from the sibling 'distribute_shapes' by focusing on alignment rather than distribution. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other shape manipulation tools or clarify that it operates on a single page.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'distribute_shapes'. The description implies you need multiple shapes, but doesn't mention prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios where another tool would be better. This leaves the agent to infer usage from the name and schema.

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