figma_set_layout_sizing

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

Annotations already indicate idempotent, non-destructive mutation. The description adds useful context: 'within its auto-layout parent' implies scope and constraint. No contradiction with annotations. Does not detail side effects like layout reflow, but sufficient given annotation coverage.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with key action and resource. No redundancy. 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?

With 13 parameters, low schema coverage, and no output schema, the description lacks critical details: prerequisites (node must be direct child of auto-layout?), mutual exclusivity of parameters, return value, or behavior on invalid inputs. Insufficient for the tool's complexity.

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?

Description groups parameters into categories (sizing, alignment, padding, explicit dimensions) which adds high-level structure. However, with low schema description coverage (38%), more detailed explanation of each parameter's behavior would be needed to fully compensate.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'Adjust' and lists exact resources: layout sizing, alignment, padding, explicit dimensions. Clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like figma_set_node_fill or figma_set_text by specifying 'within its auto-layout parent'.

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?

Implies usage when needing to modify layout properties within an auto-layout parent, but does not explicitly state when not to use or suggest alternatives. No direct comparison with siblings like figma_get_node_props or figma_set_node_fill.

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