set_layout_props

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

Annotations already indicate mutation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructiveness (destructiveHint=false). The description adds useful behavioral details: omitted fields remain unchanged, return format is {ok, nodeId}. No contradictions.

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 concise (~60 words), front-loaded with the purpose, and lists parameters efficiently. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

For a simple mutation tool, the description covers purpose, parameters, and return type. It lacks potential error cases (e.g., node not in auto-layout) but is adequate given annotations and schema richness.

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 coverage is 100%, but the description enhances understanding by explaining enum meanings (e.g., 'STRETCH = fill the counter axis', 'layoutGrow 1 = grow to fill'). This adds value beyond the schema.

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 with specific verb and resource: 'Set a node's auto-layout child properties'. It details the three properties (layoutAlign, layoutGrow, layoutPositioning) and their values, distinguishing it from sibling tools like set_auto_layout which sets parent layout.

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 context is clear: this tool modifies child properties within an auto-layout parent. While it doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives or when-not to use, the description implies appropriate usage without ambiguity.

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