set_position

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

Annotations only indicate not read-only and not destructive, so the description carries the burden of behavioral context. It adds important details: coordinate interpretation (parent-relative vs canvas), layout caveat for auto-layout nodes, optional coordinate omission, and the return shape. 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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then usage guidance, then return value. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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 with no output schema, the description is complete: it explains purpose, usage context, the key caveat about auto-layout, and the return value. No missing critical context.

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% with basic param descriptions, but the description adds meaning beyond them: explains what 'relative to parent' means for top-level vs child nodes, and that either coordinate may be omitted. This enriches the schema's minimal descriptions.

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 it sets a node's exact position (x/y) and distinguishes from move_nodes (delta) and set_layout_props (absolute positioning). The verb+resource is specific and the scope is well-defined.

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?

Explicitly states when to use (place overlay/badge/pinned element, position top-level frame), when not to (in-flow auto-layout nodes need absolute positioning first), and names alternatives (move_nodes for delta). This is clear when/when-not guidance.

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