figma_arrange_component_set

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it states the operation is non-destructive, rearranges existing variants in place, preserves the node ID and instances, wraps the set in a labeled container, and is safe to re-run. These details give an agent the key behavioral profile needed before invoking a mutation.

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 front-loaded with purpose and usage, then follows with safety and layout behavior. It is appropriately sized and every sentence contributes relevant information.

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?

For a mutating layout tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the important gaps: what it changes, what it preserves, how the grid is organized, and its repeat-run safety. Nothing essential for correct invocation appears missing.

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 100% description coverage, so gap, cellPadding, componentSetId, componentSetName, and columnProperty are already well documented. The description adds useful layout semantics about columns and rows, but does not add parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Organize a component set') and explains the purple dashed/grid layout it applies. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly name or differentiate itself from sibling tools such as figma_create_component_set or figma_analyze_component_set.

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?

It gives clear timing guidance: use after creating variants, adding states, or when component sets need cleanup. It also notes safety with placed instances and re-runs, though it does not name alternatives or state when not to use it.

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