set_axis_align

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It only says 'Set... alignment,' which is a mutation, but does not disclose preconditions (e.g., node must be an auto-layout frame), side effects, error behavior, or reversibility. The absence of any such detail leaves the agent underinformed about the operation's implications.

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, correctly front-loaded sentence that concisely states the action and object. There is no wasted text or unnecessary detail.

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?

While the schema covers parameter meanings, the overall tool context is thin. There is no output schema, no annotations, and no mention of expected failure modes or preconditions (e.g., requiring an auto-layout frame). For a simple setter, this is adequate but leaves gaps in understanding conditions or return behavior.

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%, and the schema itself includes detailed descriptions for both enum parameters, including orientation-specific meanings and SPACE_BETWEEN behavior. The tool description adds no additional parameter information, so it meets the baseline of 3 for relying on schema documentation.

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 action: 'Set primary and counter axis alignment for an auto-layout frame in Figma.' It uses a specific verb ('Set'), identifies the resource ('primary and counter axis alignment'), and adds context ('auto-layout frame'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_padding or set_item_spacing, which target different layout properties.

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 clear context by specifying 'for an auto-layout frame,' which implies the tool is appropriate when the target node is an auto-layout frame. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives (e.g., set_layout_mode for enabling auto-layout). This is a clear but unexcluded usage context.

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