set_constraints

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true, so the description aligns with mutation. However, it does not disclose specific behavioral traits beyond what annotations offer, such as overwriting existing constraints, potential interaction with auto layout, or error conditions. It adds minimal context beyond the structured fields.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the essential action without extraneous words. It is appropriately sized for a tool with three well-documented 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 simple parameter set and lack of output schema, the description is somewhat complete but lacks context on behavior such as what happens when constraints conflict or are applied to non-frame parents, and does not mention the return value or side effects beyond destruction.

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 for all parameters, providing clear definitions for nodeIds, vertical, and horizontal. The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 tool sets layout constraints (pinning behavior) on nodes relative to their parent. It uses specific verbs and resources, but does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like set_auto_layout, which also alters layout. However, the purpose is unambiguous.

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 usage guidelines are provided. The description does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., set_auto_layout) or mention prerequisites, such as the parent needing to be a frame. There is no guidance on 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.