convert_to_responsive

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals a mutating behavior (conversion) but does not state whether the operation is destructive or reversible, how it affects children of the frame, what constraints/sizing modes are applied, or whether it fails on non-frame nodes. For a conversion tool that modifies layout structure, this is a significant transparency gap.

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?

One clear, concise sentence that is perfectly sized for the tool's simplicity. Every word earns its place, and it is front-loaded with the verb and resource.

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 is a structural mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is under-specified. It lacks information about success/failure conditions, effects on child nodes, whether layout sizing and constraints are automatically applied, and what state the node will be in after conversion. A conversion tool with this little context is hard for an agent to invoke with confidence.

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 documents the single nodeId parameter with description 'Root frame to convert'. The description adds the concept of converting fixed-width to responsive auto-layout, which clarifies the intended parameter semantics. However, it doesn't add details beyond the schema about what kind of frame qualifies or how the nodeId is interpreted.

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 states a clear action ('Convert fixed-width designs to responsive auto-layout') with a specific resource (fixed-width designs) and outcome (responsive auto-layout). It distinguishes itself from related siblings like create_responsive_variant, set_breakpoint, and responsive_check, though it doesn't explicitly name alternative 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?

The description implies the tool is for converting fixed-width designs to responsive auto-layout, which gives context for when to use it. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it, no alternatives, and no prerequisite conditions (e.g., whether the node must be a frame, whether auto-layout must already exist, or whether a fixed-width selection is required).

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