figma_set_auto_layout

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

Annotations are absent, so the description must disclose behavioral characteristics, but it does not. It fails to mention that this is a mutation, that existing layout properties may be overwritten, or that the node must be a frame for the operation to succeed.

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, succinct sentence with no redundancy. It is front-loaded but slightly under-specified; however, conciseness is evaluated as appropriate sizing, and no words are wasted.

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?

The tool has 17 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The one-line description is grossly insufficient to understand the tool's full behavior, parameter interactions, or prerequisites, making it far from complete.

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 only 29%, and the description provides no parameter-level details. It only introduces the term 'flexbox,' which does not clarify the many enum and numeric parameters; the description does not compensate for the schema's gaps.

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 what the tool does: configure auto-layout (flexbox) on a frame. The verb 'configure' and the specific resource 'auto-layout' distinguish it from sibling set tools like set_fill, set_stroke, and set_constraints.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it should be used for flexbox layout instead of set_constraints, nor does it state exclusions (e.g., only applies to frames).

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