set_layout_sizing

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only restates the operation without explaining effects, limitations, default behavior, or side effects. It does not state what happens when vertical or horizontal are omitted, whether FILL requires a parent auto-layout, or whether this mutates the node in place.

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 concise sentence with no wasted words and gets directly to the point. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it lacks structured elaboration that could have been added without much cost.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a design-domain tool with enum parameters, the description is too thin to fully support correct invocation. The agent is left without definitions of the sizing modes, prerequisites, or consequences of partial parameters, making this incomplete for reliable use.

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 nodeId, vertical, and horizontal at a basic level. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, and the enum values FIXED, HUG, and FILL are not explained, so the agent must infer their semantics from domain knowledge.

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 'Set how a child behaves in auto-layout' clearly identifies the verb and resource, and the context of auto-layout distinguishes it from generic sizing tools. It is slightly vague because 'behaves' could refer to constraints or layout behavior, but the title and schema parameters make the sizing intent clear.

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 child nodes within an auto-layout parent, giving a clear contextual trigger. However, it provides no explicit guidance about when to prefer this tool over related siblings like set_auto_layout, set_constraints, or resize_node, and no exclusions or alternatives are named.

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