fix_spacing

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose the mutation behavior, but it only states that spacing values are adjusted. It does not say which properties count as spacing, whether the change affects the node subtree, whether it is reversible, or that it is a destructive batch edit.

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 tight sentence with no redundancy and the core behavior is front-loaded. It is concise, though the brevity leaves substantive gaps.

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 mutates design data, has no output schema, and no annotations; an agent cannot tell the scope of 'all spacing values' (node only vs subtree), which properties are touched, or what the grid parameter changes. This level of ambiguity is dangerous for a batch modification tool.

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 100%, so nodeId and grid are already described. The description adds nothing substantive about how grid influences snapping or how nodeId scopes the operation beyond the schema text.

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 ('auto-fix') and resource ('all spacing values') with an explicit target ('nearest 8px grid value'), so an agent knows what it accomplishes. It doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like batch_round_values or export_spacing_tokens, so sibling differentiation is weak.

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?

No guidance on when to choose fix_spacing over siblings such as batch_round_values or annotate_spacing. There are no context cues, prerequisites, or exclusions; the description only gives an implied reason to use it.

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