set_constraints

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 does not mention whether the node must already be in an auto-layout container, whether existing constraints are overwritten, or what side effects occur on the node's position or size.

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 or repetition. It is appropriately sized for a simple 3-parameter tool.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description is too sparse to give an agent complete confidence about behavior. It does not explain what happens when only one constraint axis is provided, whether constraints apply only within a parent frame, or what the node layout must look like for this call to succeed.

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 is 3 even though the description adds little beyond the schema. The description's mention of 'responsive constraints' gives some context to the vertical and horizontal parameters, but it does not enrich the meaning of individual enum options beyond their names.

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?

Description states a specific action ('Set') and resource ('responsive constraints') on a node, and the enum values (MIN, CENTER, MAX, STRETCH, SCALE) make the intent reasonably clear. It does not explicitly differentiate from responsive-related siblings such as set_layout_sizing or convert_to_responsive, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives like set_layout_sizing or create_responsive_variant. The description simply states what it does with no context about prerequisites, scenarios, or excluded cases.

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