annotate_spacing

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It names the core behavior—adding redline spacing annotations—but does not disclose whether the operation is destructive, whether it replaces existing annotations, whether it requires special permissions, or whether it affects the frame in other ways. These are significant unknowns for a mutation-style tool.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes meaning, and the parenthetical '(redlines)' adds useful precision without bloating.

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 tool is simple and the schema covers all parameters, making it minimally viable. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the description should disclose more about side effects and expected results. It is adequate but leaves meaningful behavioral gaps.

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%, and the schema already explains nodeId as the frame and each boolean as a show/hide setting with defaults. The description adds no parameter-level detail, 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 ('Add') and identifies both the resource ('a frame') and the type of output ('visual spacing annotations (redlines)'). It clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling annotation tools like annotate_colors, annotate_typography, and annotate_grid by focusing specifically on spacing.

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. There are many sibling annotation and spacing tools, but no mentions of exclusions, prerequisites, or preferred contexts, so the agent must infer usage entirely from the purpose.

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