set_axis_align

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It offers no insights into side effects, failure modes, or what happens if the frame is not an auto-layout frame. It only states the target must be an auto-layout frame, which is a mild constraint but not enough to be considered transparent.

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 a concise single sentence of 11 words, effectively front-loading the action and target. Every word earns its place, and it avoids redundancy with the schema.

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 detailed schema parameters and no output schema, the description provides the essential purpose and target but omits any mention of return values, side effects, or edge cases. It is minimally adequate but leaves questions about behavior when constraints are violated.

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% for the three parameters, including detailed explanations for enum values (e.g., BASELINE and SPACE_BETWEEN notes). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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: setting primary and counter axis alignment on an auto-layout frame in Figma. It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like set_layout_mode and set_item_spacing by focusing on alignment axes.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., the frame must already be an auto-layout) beyond the phrase 'for an auto-layout frame,' but this is implied rather than actionable. No exclusions or alternative tool suggestions are given, so the agent lacks context for tool selection.

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