Set auto layout on a frame

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

Annotations already mark the operation as destructive/non-read-only, so the bar for behavioral disclosure is lower. The description adds a useful caveat—'Only the properties you name are changed'—which clarifies the partial-update behavior. It does not warn about potential side effects like layout recalculation or child position changes, but the destructiveHint annotation covers the main mutability signal.

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 two concise sentences with no filler. The core action comes first, the NONE behavior is immediately stated, and the partial-update caveat is included without redundant detail.

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 description covers the essential behavior and the NONE escape hatch, and the schema documents required and enum parameters. However, for a tool with 10 parameters and no output schema, it leaves important edge cases unaddressed, such as whether layout properties still apply when mode is NONE, and what happens if a non-frame node is targeted. The destructive semantics are present in annotations, not in the description.

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 60%, and the description adds a high-level framing by naming direction, spacing, padding, and alignment. This helps relate concepts like itemSpacing and the alignment enums, but it does not compensate for undocumented parameters such as paddingTop, paddingLeft, paddingRight, and paddingBottom. An agent still has to infer their exact meaning from context.

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 identifies the resource ('a frame') and the specific action ('Turns auto layout on'), and enumerates the exact property categories affected: direction, spacing, padding, and alignment. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like figma_set_fill or figma_set_layout_sizing.

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 when to use the tool: whenever auto layout needs to be enabled, configured, or disabled on a frame. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools that a user might consider, leaving the routing to the agent to infer.

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