set_item_spacing

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It only states the basic mutation ('Set distance') and does not describe failure modes for non-auto-layout frames, side effects, or behavioral caveats like itemSpacing being ignored under certain alignment settings.

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. Every word contributes to identifying the operation's target and scope.

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 schema covers parameter semantics well, and the description names the target context, but with no annotations and no output schema, an agent still lacks guidance on alternatives and behavior beyond the basic mutation. It is adequate but not fully complete.

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%, and each parameter already has meaningful descriptions, including caveats for itemSpacing and counterAxisSpacing. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 ('Set') and identifies the exact resource ('distance between children in an auto-layout frame'). This clearly differentiates it from related siblings like set_padding and set_axis_align, even though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 gives a clear applicable context: it only applies to auto-layout frames, which tells an agent when the tool is relevant. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclude cases such as fixed-layout frames.

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