Set Auto Layout

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, covering replay safety, and openWorldHint=true, allowing for undiscovered fields. The description adds no behavioral context beyond saying it's a setter. It doesn't disclose side effects like whether unspecified properties are reset, but the schema's conditional notes (e.g., itemSpacing ignored with SPACE_BETWEEN) are present in structured fields, so the bar is lower. No contradiction found.

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 exactly one sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and every word adds value. No redundancy or fluff.

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 high complexity (14 parameters, 6 enums) and the presence of an output schema, the description need not enumerate return details. The schema's property descriptions fully cover parameter semantics, so the minimal description is adequate. However, it could have mentioned that unspecified properties are left unchanged, but the schema's additionalProperties false and idempotent hint partially cover this. Overall complete enough.

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%, with each parameter having detailed descriptions, including enum values and conditional behavior (e.g., counterAxisSpacing only with WRAP). The tool description itself only lists high-level categories (padding, spacing, etc.) without adding syntax or parameter-specific meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema carries the full burden.

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 'configure' and resource 'a frame's auto-layout', listing specific aspects (mode, padding, spacing, alignment, sizing). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that handle fills, strokes, effects, etc. The phrase 'in one unified setter' further differentiates it as a single combined operation.

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 scopes usage to frames and auto-layout configuration, making it clear when to apply. It does not explicitly list exclusions or alternatives, but the context is unambiguous enough that an agent can infer it is the dedicated auto-layout setter, especially given the sibling set includes no competing auto-layout tool.

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