set_grid_child_position

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the span/track-count constraint, that the tool reports the actual bound on overflow, that spans cannot cross occupied cells (Figma blocks them), the ordering dependency, and the default sizing behavior. These are non-obvious failure and sequencing behaviors an agent needs.

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?

Dense and front-loaded with the positional meaning first, then constraints. It is a single long block with em-dash clauses, slightly run-on, but every sentence carries actionable information with little waste.

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 7-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers constraints, ordering, defaults, and overflow reporting, which is everything an agent needs to call it correctly and interpret failures.

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 0%, so the description must compensate and largely does: row/column are explained as 0-based anchor indices, rowSpan/columnSpan as track counts, and the aligns as intra-cell controls with 'AUTO' stretching. Six of seven parameters gain meaning beyond the raw schema; only nodeId is left implicit as the child being placed.

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+resource ('Place a child in its GRID parent') and immediately scopes it to grid children, distinguishing it from siblings like set_grid_layout, generate_grid, and reorder_grid_tracks. An agent knows exactly what operation this performs.

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?

Gives clear conditional guidance: place and widen a spanning child BEFORE adding children beside it, and use align 'AUTO' to stretch. It does not name alternative sibling tools directly, but the ordering constraints effectively tell the agent when this call must happen relative to others.

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