set_auto_layout

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

Annotations indicate the tool is not read-only and not destructive. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it notes that layoutMode NONE disables auto layout, describes what each mode changes (e.g., flex vs CSS-Grid), and explains the return format ({ ok, nodeId }). It also clarifies behavior of specific parameters like itemReverseZIndex and strokesIncludedInLayout.

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 moderately long but well-structured, with the main purpose upfront and details organized by mode. Each sentence contributes value, though some parenthetical expansions could be more concise.

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 complexity (18 parameters, no output schema), the description covers key modes and parameters but omits details like required parameters (nodeId, layoutMode), all alignment enum values, and error conditions. The return format is mentioned but not fully explained.

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 low (22%), but the description compensates by grouping parameters by layout mode and explaining their function (e.g., counterAxisSpacing as 'CSS row-gap', itemReverseZIndex for stacked avatars). It covers all major parameter groups (padding, spacing, wrap, grid counts/gaps) but lacks individual details for some numeric parameters.

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 tool's purpose: 'Configure a frame's auto layout.' It specifies the resource (frame) and action (configuring auto layout), and distinguishes between three layout modes (NONE, HORIZONTAL/VERTICAL, GRID) with their associated parameters. This provides a specific verb+resource and differentiates from sibling tools like set_layout_props.

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 (when you want to set auto layout on a frame) but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like set_layout_grids or set_layout_props. It does not mention when not to use it or provide alternative tool names.

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