set_layout_mode

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

With no annotations the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses one non-obvious side effect — empty wrappers strip leftover default white fill unless clearFill is false — which is valuable, but says nothing about permissions, reversibility, or what happens to existing children when the mode changes.

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-loaded with the primary purpose and mode values, followed by targeted detail on GRID and wrap. The final sentence is telegraphic but still earns its place by explaining the fill-stripping side effect.

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 setter with no output schema, the description covers mode values, the wrap constraint, the clearFill side effect, and the related grid tools an agent needs next. The main gap is the absence of any statement about permissions or the effect of switching modes on existing children.

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 only 25%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: it lists the layoutMode enum values, the layoutWrap values plus their HORIZONTAL-only constraint, and the clearFill default semantics. Only nodeId is left to the schema.

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) and resource (layout mode and wrap behavior of a frame), then enumerates the exact mode values NONE/HORIZONTAL/VERTICAL/GRID. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by naming set_grid_layout for tracks and set_grid_child_position for children.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to the right sibling tools for GRID configuration and child placement, which is genuinely useful context. It does not, however, clarify when to use this versus adjacent layout tools like set_auto_layout or set_layout_sizing, so a when-not clause is missing.

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