set_autolayout

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral consequences, but it only says 'Configure' and 'existing frame'. It does not state that existing AutoLayout settings will be overwritten, that 'NONE' removes AutoLayout, or what happens if the target node is not a valid Frame.

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 one compact sentence with a useful parenthetical listing the core rule categories. It is front-loaded with the tool's purpose, is easy to scan, and contains no filler.

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?

The parameter schema is rich and covers all inputs, and the description states the core purpose and the existing-frame prerequisite. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the agent is left uninformed about the mutation's side effects and return value, so the definition is adequate but not complete.

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 schema already explains each of the 12 parameters. The description's parenthetical (direction, padding, gap, alignment) maps loosely to those parameters but adds no new meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Configure') and a specific resource ('existing frame'), and it names the domain (Flexbox/AutoLayout) plus the main rule categories. It is clear, but it does not explicitly differentiate this from generic mutation tools like update_node or other frame setters, so it falls short of a 5.

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 'on an existing frame' implies the tool is for modifying frames that already exist rather than creating new ones, which provides weak usage context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives such as update_node or create_frame.

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