set_auto_layout

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully cover behavioral traits. It only describes what the tool does, without addressing side effects, idempotency, constraints, or error conditions. Important behavioral details (e.g., parameter interactions) are left to the schema, not the description.

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 concise at two sentences with no wasted words. However, it lacks structure (e.g., bullet points or emphasis on key constraints) that could improve readability for a tool with 14 parameters.

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 complexity (14 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description fails to provide overarching context. It doesn't explain return values, side effects, or parameter interdependencies beyond what's in the schema, leaving critical gaps.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds no extra meaning beyond 'set auto-layout properties.' Baseline score of 3 applies as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 it sets auto-layout properties for a frame and explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by stating it 'replaces individual layout tools.' This provides a specific verb+resource and sets it apart from other tool functions.

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 mentions it replaces individual layout tools but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it state prerequisites or exclusions. Some implied context exists, but no detailed usage scenarios.

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