set_padding

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention that this is a mutating operation (beyond the verb 'set'), does not state whether existing padding is overwritten, whether the frame must already be auto-layout, or what happens if invoked on a non-auto-layout frame. It also omits any side effects or return behavior.

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, eight-word sentence that is concise and front-loaded. It contains no redundant phrases or filler, making it easy to parse and directly communicates the core purpose. Every word earns its place.

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 mutating nature, lack of annotations, and absence of an output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not explain the return value, error conditions, or the critical requirement that the target frame be an auto-layout. For a tool with five parameters, the description leaves the agent without key operational context.

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?

The input schema has complete descriptions for all five parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description itself adds no additional semantic meaning beyond the schema, such as relationships between padding values, units, or constraints. Schema already covers parameter meaning adequately.

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 (setting padding values) and the target resource (an auto-layout frame), using a specific verb and resource. While it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools, 'padding' is a distinct attribute from the spacing, alignment, and layout mode operations handled by siblings. It could be slightly more explicit about scope, but it is unambiguous.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites such as the frame being an auto-layout. It only states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage from the tool name and schema. There is no explicit exclusions or references to sibling tools.

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