design_set_transform

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden, and it discloses almost nothing: it does not say whether omitted properties are preserved or reset, whether the change is undoable, what permissions or selection state are required, or how anchor interacts with x/y. 'Set' implies mutation but nothing beyond that.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity contributes to the missing behavioral and usage detail rather than reflecting deliberate restraint.

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 an 11-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin: it never explains partial-update semantics, anchor behavior, the sketchId default, or what the tool returns. Only the field enumeration is covered.

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 100%, so each of the 11 parameters is already documented in the schema; the description only mirrors four of them (position, size, rotation, scale) and omits anchorX/anchorY and sketchId. With full schema coverage the baseline of 3 applies — no added semantic value.

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?

States a specific verb ('Set') plus the resource ('a design layer') and enumerates the transform dimensions it controls: position, size, rotation, scale. An agent can distinguish it from design_update_layer or design_reorder_layers by the geometric framing, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus design_update_layer, design_add_layer, or design_set_shape_style, nor any precondition (layer must exist, sketch context). Usage is only inferable from the verb and the field list.

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