set_layout_mode

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

No annotations are present, and the description fails to disclose behavioral traits such as whether the tool is destructive (overwrites existing settings), side effects (e.g., resetting child alignment), error conditions, or authentication requirements. The word 'set' implies mutation but offers no safety or context details.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that immediately communicates the tool's function. No fluff or redundancy. All words serve a clear purpose.

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 three parameters (two enum types) and no output schema, the description is too brief. It omits what happens when layoutWrap is not provided (default behavior), differences between NONE/HORIZONTAL/VERTICAL, and any return values or confirmation. This leaves the agent underinformed.

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 100%, so the input schema already describes all parameters. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., does not explain enum options or how layoutWrap interacts with layoutMode). A score of 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage but no added value from description.

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 tool's purpose: 'Set the layout mode and wrap behavior of a frame in Figma'. It specifies the resource (frame), action (set), and attributes (layout mode, wrap behavior), distinguishing it from sibling tools like set_item_spacing or set_layout_sizing.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool compared to alternatives. For instance, it doesn't clarify that other tools handle spacing or sizing, or that this is specifically for changing layout mode/wrap. The agent is left to infer usage from the name alone.

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