set_padding

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It implies a mutation but does not disclose units (px?), whether unset sides default or are required, what happens if the node isn't an auto-layout frame, or whether the operation is reversible. Only the target and the four fields are conveyed.

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 well-formed sentence with no filler, front-loading the verb and the constraint. Appropriately sized for the operation.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, 5 undocumented params and no preconditions stated, the definition is too thin. Missing the auto-layout precondition, units, and default behavior leaves real gaps an agent would need.

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, but it only restates the four side names already present in the schema and says nothing about nodeId or the numeric format/units for top/right/bottom/left. It adds almost no meaning beyond the property names.

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 (padding values) and constrains the target to an auto-layout frame, listing the four sides involved. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from close siblings like set_auto_layout or set_item_spacing, but an agent can identify the operation.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. that the node must already be an auto-layout frame), and no mention of alternatives such as set_auto_layout/set_item_spacing for other spacing concerns. Usage must be inferred entirely.

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