set_layout_sizing

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of disclosing behavior. It simply says 'Set' without mentioning side effects, constraints (e.g., FILL only for auto-layout children, HUG only for frames/text), or potential errors when applied to non-auto-layout frames. The schema provides some parameter constraints, but the description itself adds no behavioral insight.

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, focused sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently communicates the tool's purpose without 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?

For a simple setter tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but leaves gaps. It lacks usage guidance, behavioral side effects, and error conditions. The schema covers parameter details well, but the overall tool context is under-specified relative to its complexity and sibling tools.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds minimal semantic value by clarifying the target is an 'auto-layout frame', which constrains the nodeId parameter. It also maps 'horizontal and vertical' to the two sizing parameters, but does not extend beyond the schema's enum descriptions.

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 verb 'Set' and the specific resource 'horizontal and vertical sizing modes for an auto-layout frame in Figma'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like set_layout_mode by focusing on sizing modes rather than layout type, padding, or spacing.

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 implies usage for auto-layout frames but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over related tools such as set_layout_mode, set_padding, or set_axis_align. No exclusions or alternative guidance is provided, so the usage context is only implied.

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