Set Auto Layout

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

Annotations declare idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, but the description does not elaborate on these traits. It describes the tool as a 'unified setter' which is positive but does not disclose potential side effects or behavior beyond the input schema. No contradiction with annotations.

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 efficiently captures the purpose and scope. Every word is meaningful, with no redundancy or filler. It is front-loaded with the core action and lists key configuration components.

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 has 14 parameters, all documented in the schema, and an output schema exists (though not shown), the description is sufficient. It provides a high-level summary while leaving detailed parameter behavior to the schema. It could mention the output or confirm that the tool is safe for repeated calls (idempotent), but overall it's adequate.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage, so each parameter is already explained with details including enum notes (e.g., SPACE_BETWEEN ignoring itemSpacing). The description adds no additional semantic value beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline score.

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 configures a frame's auto-layout properties with specific components (mode, padding, spacing, alignment, sizing) as a unified setter. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that handle other node properties like effects, fills, or strokes.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusion criteria. The intended use is implied by the description but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or what prerequisites exist (e.g., the node must be a frame).

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