Conduit

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

Annotations provide rich behavioral context (idempotentHint: true, destructiveHint: false, edgeCaseWarnings). The description adds value by specifying it works on 'one or more layout grids' (implying batch operations) and mentioning the return format 'Array of result objects for each operation', which isn't covered in annotations. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste: first sentence states purpose and scope, second sentence specifies return format. Perfectly front-loaded with essential information.

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 rich annotations (idempotentHint, destructiveHint, edgeCaseWarnings) and 100% schema coverage, the description provides adequate context. It adds useful information about batch operations and return format. The main gap is no output schema, but the description partially compensates by mentioning the return structure.

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 fully documents the single 'layout' parameter and its nested properties. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, maintaining the baseline score for high schema coverage.

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 clearly states the verb 'Set, update, or delete' and the resource 'layout grids on Figma nodes', specifying the node types (FRAME, COMPONENT, INSTANCE). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'set_auto_layout_resizing' by focusing on layout grids rather than resizing behavior.

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 usage for layout grid operations on Figma nodes but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'set_auto_layout_resizing' or other node modification tools. No explicit exclusions or prerequisites are provided.

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