set_breakpoint

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 conveying behavior. It only says 'Resize a frame,' revealing a mutation but not disclosing what happens to the frame's current dimensions, position, constraints, or whether any responsive behavior is actually being set behind the scenes.

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 short sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to the purpose, making it easily scannable for an agent.

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 both parameters, so basic invocation is possible. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits side effects, the meaning of 'standard breakpoint' dimensions, and any differentiation from related resize and responsive tools.

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 baseline applies. The description adds little beyond the schema: nodeId is already described as 'Frame to resize,' and breakpoint is already an enum. The word 'standard' is the only slight addition.

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 specific action ('Resize') on a specific resource ('a frame') to a known target ('a standard breakpoint'). It is clear and not a tautology, though it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool resize_node.

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 purpose implies usage when a frame should be set to a standard breakpoint size, but there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over resize_node, set_constraints, or responsive-related siblings. The usage context is only implied.

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