set_item_spacing

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 states what it does but omits whether the target frame must already have auto-layout, whether spacing is in pixels, whether negative values are accepted, and what happens to existing spacing. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, these gaps are significant.

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; every word contributes. It is appropriately sized for a simple two-parameter setter, though it is terse enough that a little more detail could have been added without bloating it.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and two parameters at 0% schema description coverage, the description is too thin to fully specify correct invocation. It omits units, prerequisites, and any interaction with sibling layout properties, leaving real gaps for a mutation tool.

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 for the undocumented parameters. It implies itemSpacing via 'distance between children' and nodeId via 'auto-layout frame', but adds no units, format, or constraint details for either parameter, leaving the bulk of parameter meaning unexplained.

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 states a specific verb ('Set') and a specific resource ('distance between children in an auto-layout frame'), so the agent knows exactly what operation this performs. However, it does not differentiate itself from closely related siblings such as set_padding, set_auto_layout, set_layout_mode, arrange_children, or distribute_nodes, all of which operate on frame layout properties.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g., the frame must already have auto-layout enabled), and no mention of alternatives. The phrase 'in an auto-layout frame' implies context but does not tell the agent when this tool is the right choice versus set_padding or set_auto_layout.

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