Configure auto-layout

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

Annotations already declare idempotent=true, destructiveHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds real behavioral context on top: mode:'none' removes auto-layout, negative gap overlaps items, 'every value is checked before the frame changes' (validation/atomicity), and editor support (Design; unverified FigJam, Slides). This is exactly the kind of extra context the annotations cannot carry.

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?

Front-loaded with the field inventory, then constraints, then sibling routing and editor support. Every sentence carries a distinct constraint, but it is a dense run-on block that is harder to scan than a broken-out list would be.

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 15-parameter mutation tool with 53% schema coverage, no output schema, and present annotations, the description covers the behaviorally risky parameters (mode, wrap, gap, alignment) well and correctly omits return-value explanation. Remaining gaps are the loosely-specified axis sizing pair and session handling, which the schema partly carries.

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 only 53%, so the description has to compensate, and it does well: it defines alignX/alignY semantics, wrap's horizontal requirement, rowGap defaulting to gap, alignContent sharing wrapped-row height, and negative-gap overlap with reverseZIndex. Axis sizing is covered only loosely ('axis sizing') and counterSizing/primarySizing specifics are left to the schema, so it stops short of full compensation.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Full auto-layout configuration on one node') and enumerates the exact fields it governs (mode, gap, padding, alignment, wrap, axis sizing). It also routes clipping responsibility to the sibling figma_set_clips_content, so an agent can separate this tool from adjacent layout 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?

Gives clear usage conditions (wrap needs a horizontal layout; baseline only as alignY of a row; space-between only along the layout direction) and names an alternative for the clipping case. It does not explicitly contrast with figma_check_layout or other layout-adjacent siblings, so it falls short of full when/when-not routing.

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