layout_set_flex_fit

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as side effects (e.g., triggering layout rebuild), permissions needed, or constraints. The description is minimal and leaves agent uninformed about tool behavior beyond the basic action.

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 sentence, concise and front-loaded with the action. It includes minimal but useful RPC identifier. Could be slightly more informative without being verbose, so a 4 fits.

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?

No output schema, so description should clarify return value. It does not mention whether tool returns success/failure or any data. Also lacks context about flex child widget concept and how this tool fits into a workflow with siblings. Incomplete for a 3-parameter tool.

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% with clear descriptions for each parameter. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides; it does not explain what 'tight' vs 'loose' means or how to obtain objectId. Baseline 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 it sets the flex fit property of a flex child widget, using specific verb 'set' and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like layout_set_flex_factor and layout_set_flex_properties, which set different aspects of flex layout.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no context about prerequisites or expected use cases. It simply states what it does without any when-to-use information.

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