autolayout_design_document

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

With no annotations provided, the description takes on full burden. It discloses the processing order (hard-wrap, shrink, grow, truncate only when requested), the deterministic nature, and the return value (adjusted document, decisions, QA report). It does not explicitly state whether the input is mutated, but 'Returns the adjusted document' suggests a non-destructive operation, adding value beyond a simple mutation statement.

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, front-loaded with the core action ('Hard-wrap overflowing text'), and every word earns its place. It efficiently summarizes the process and return value without unnecessary elaboration.

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's complexity (nested document structure, three parameters, no output schema), the description provides essential context: the algorithm, the condition for truncation, and the composition of the return value. It does not detail failure modes or the QA report structure, but the rich input schema and clear behavioral overview make it sufficiently complete for an agent to understand the tool's role and outcomes.

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 parameters onOverflow and minimumFontScale already well-described and the document param described as 'Design document whose text frames should be repaired'. The tool description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, such as the order of operations, but does not clarify parameter syntax or additional constraints. Baseline 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 uses a specific action ('Hard-wrap', 'shrink', 'grow', 'truncate') on a clear resource ('overflowing text' in a design document), distinguishing it from siblings like resize_design_document or update_element. It clearly conveys what the tool does and its scope.

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 implies usage for repairing overflowing text but does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives or provide exclusions. It lacks direct guidance on suitable scenarios or related tools, so usage context is only implied rather than clearly specified.

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