figcraft_create_autolayout_frame

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It states that a container is created but does not disclose that this mutates the active document, what is returned (the new frame's ID, needed for the 'parent' parameter), whether a file must be open first, or how effects like glassmorphism/dropShadow are resolved. Only the schema's own x/y note hints at artboard-root behavior.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence that opens with the action and then enumerates capabilities, with no filler or repetition. It is keyword-dense and slightly hard to parse, but every clause maps to a real capability of the tool.

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 20-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what is built but omits return value, document-state prerequisites, and how the created frame is referenced afterwards. The 100% schema coverage compensates for parameter gaps, leaving this at minimally 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so every one of the 20 parameters is already documented in the schema, including enums and defaults. The description restates the feature set (padding, gap, sizing, corner smoothing) but adds no syntax, constraints, or interaction rules beyond what the schema already supplies; baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ('Buat kontainer Auto-Layout') and enumerates the capabilities (direction, padding, gap, alignment, sizing, corner smoothing, effects). It is clear what the tool creates, but it never distinguishes itself from the near-identical sibling 'create_autolayout_frame' / 'figcraft_create_autolayout_frame' variants listed alongside it.

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 closing clause ('sehingga elemen tidak berantakan atau bertumpuk') implies the use case — arranging child elements without overlap — but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-to-use-alternative guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. an open file or existing parent), and no mention of when 'create_node' or 'create_responsive_system' would be preferred.

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