set_auto_layout

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions grid-snapping but fails to disclose whether the tool overwrites existing settings, requires specific permissions, or has side effects like ignoring non-multiple-of-8 values. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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?

The description is extremely concise - two sentences, with the core action and a key constraint front-loaded. Every word serves a purpose with no redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (12 parameters) and lack of output schema or annotations, the description is too brief. It omits critical details like how grid-snapping works for per-side padding, whether it validates inputs, and what happens if the node is not a frame. The description is incomplete for effective use.

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 67%, so the description should add context. It does provide a helpful grid-snapping note that applies to spacing parameters like 'gap' and 'padding', but does not explain individual parameter semantics beyond what the schema already states. This is adequate but not exceptional.

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 clearly states the action ('Configure auto-layout') and the resource ('a frame'), and adds a specific constraint about spacing being 8px grid-snapped. However, it does not differentiate this tool from similar sibling tools like 'set_layout_sizing' or 'set_constraints', which could cause confusion.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool, what prerequisites exist (e.g., the node must be a frame), or how it differs from alternative tools. This lack of context forces the agent to infer usage without clear direction.

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