set_padding

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 states a mutation action ('Set padding values') but does not describe side effects, partial update behavior (which padding values are changed if only some are provided), or what happens if the node is not an auto-layout frame. This lack of transparency is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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: 'Set padding values for an auto-layout frame in Figma.' Every word earns its place, and there is no redundancy or unnecessary detail. It is concise and immediately understandable.

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's simplicity and full schema coverage, the description is reasonably complete but lacks operational context. It does not mention that only nodeId is required, that unspecified paddings may retain existing values, or any error conditions. The absence of an output schema is fine, but behavioral notes would improve completeness.

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%, with all five parameters described individually. The description itself adds no extra meaning beyond saying 'padding values', so it does not compensate for or enrich the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 padding values for an auto-layout frame in Figma' uses a specific verb (Set), identifies the resource (padding values), and scopes it to auto-layout frames. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_item_spacing or set_layout_mode, which target different properties.

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 a clear usage context: 'for an auto-layout frame' indicates it applies only to auto-layout frames. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool instead of alternatives (e.g., set_item_spacing for spacing) or provide any exclusion criteria, so guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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