set_grid_layout

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does add real behavioral semantics (GRID cells vs single flow, FLEX tracks sharing leftover space by weight). However, it never discloses mutation consequences for an existing frame — whether current children/layout are reset, what happens to children matching no cell, or any permission constraints.

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?

Front-loads the core action, then flows into GRID semantics, parameters, and the follow-up sibling. Dense but every sentence is technical and earns its place; the only minor cost is a long single paragraph that could separate the enum parameters more clearly.

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 9-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core grid configuration well but omits the two enum parameters and any state-change or failure behavior. An agent could call the main path but would be under-informed on gridAutoTracks and gridItemsPositioning.

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%, so the description must compensate. It richly explains rowCount/columnCount, the gaps, and the tricky anyOf format of rowSizes/columnSizes (number = FIXED px, or object with FLEX/FIXED/HUG and value). But it leaves gridAutoTracks (NONE/ROWS) and gridItemsPositioning (MANUAL/ROW_AUTO_FLOW) completely unexplained, which are behaviorally significant enums.

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 and resource ('Turn a frame into a GRID auto-layout container and configure it') and immediately distinguishes GRID from HORIZONTAL/VERTICAL layoutMode, which is exactly the boundary against siblings like set_auto_layout and set_layout_mode. An agent can tell what this does and how it differs from the other layout tools.

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 usage context: configure tracks here, then 'Position children afterwards with set_grid_child_position,' which routes the agent to the correct follow-up sibling. It does not, however, state when to prefer this over set_auto_layout/set_layout_mode or any prerequisites, so it stops short of explicit 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.