set_axis_align

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It partially meets this by explaining the effect of SPACE_AROUND and SPACE_EVENLY (equal spacing around/between children, padding included), but says nothing about mutation semantics, required node state, or error behavior on non-auto-layout nodes.

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?

Two tightly packed sentences; the core purpose is front-loaded and the parenthetical about SPACE_AROUND/SPACE_EVENLY earns its place. Slightly dense but no wasted text.

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 3-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the two enum parameters well but leaves gaps: the required nodeId, the precondition that the node is an auto-layout frame, and error/mutation behavior are all unaddressed.

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 0% and the schema declares no enums, so the description does the heavy lifting by enumerating all valid values for primaryAxisAlignItems and counterAxisAlignItems. It omits any explanation of the required nodeId parameter, which prevents a 5.

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 precise verb (Set) plus the exact resource (primary and counter axis alignment) and scopes it to auto-layout frames. This cleanly distinguishes it from neighboring tools like set_padding, set_item_spacing, and set_layout_mode without needing to name them.

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 phrase 'for auto-layout frames' implies the applicable context (node must be an auto-layout frame), but there is no explicit when-to-use, no exclusion, and no mention of alternatives such as set_auto_layout or arrange_children. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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