configure_layout_constraints

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys that the tool mutates layout settings, but it does not mention whether existing layout constraints are overwritten, whether the frame must already support auto-layout, what side effects occur, or any prerequisites or limitations.

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 focused sentence with no filler. The verb and target are front-loaded, and every phrase adds relevant information about the tool's scope.

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?

This is a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a nested parameter object. The description provides only a high-level summary and leaves out important operational context such as whether existing layout settings are replaced, what node types are valid, and when to prefer sibling tools like auto_layout_grid. This is insufficient for reliable invocation.

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 67% and the description adds useful plain-language grouping ('alignment, and sizing constraints') that maps to nested schema fields like alignItems, justifyContent, and min/max dimensions. However, it does not elaborate on the 'layout' object semantics or clarify undocumented fields such as flexWrap and direction, so it only partially compensates for schema 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 identifies a specific action ('Configures auto-layout...'), a target resource ('container frame'), and enumerates the affected properties (direction, padding, gap, alignment, sizing). However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from the closely related sibling 'auto_layout_grid', so it stops short of full sibling distinction.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like auto_layout_grid or apply_node_patch. The description implies layout configuration on a frame, but it does not state conditions, exclusions, or a preferred alternative, leaving the agent to infer selection.

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