set_layout_sizing

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It adds nothing beyond the schema: it does not explain what happens if the node is not an auto-layout frame, if incompatible modes are chosen, or any side effects. The schema already describes enum constraints, but the description fails to provide actionable behavioral context.

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 sentence that is clear, front-loaded, and directly states the tool's purpose. Every word is necessary, and there is no wasted text.

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 no output schema or annotations, the description is minimal. It lacks information about prerequisites, error conditions, or what the tool returns. For a simple tool with three well-documented parameters, the description is just barely adequate but could be more complete.

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 100%, so the schema adequately documents all parameters. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what is in the schema; it merely restates the purpose. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 function: setting horizontal and vertical sizing modes for an auto-layout frame. It uses a specific verb ('Set') and resource ('horizontal and vertical sizing modes') and distinguishes from related siblings like 'set_layout_mode' (which sets layout mode itself) and 'resize_node' (which sets absolute dimensions).

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 versus alternatives (e.g., set_layout_mode, resize_node), nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., the frame must already have auto-layout applied). No when-to-use or when-not-to-use context is given.

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