Configure a Figma frame's auto-layout direction and wrap behavior to control how child elements are arranged and flow within it.
Set the layout mode and wrap behavior of a frame in Figma
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| nodeId | Yes | The ID of the frame to modify | |
| layoutMode | Yes | Layout mode for the frame | |
| layoutWrap | No | Whether the auto-layout frame wraps its children |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose side effects and constraints on its own. It only says 'set', with no mention that this mutates design state, that layoutWrap may only apply when layoutMode is not NONE, or any other behavioral consequences. For a mutation tool, this is a significant transparency gap.
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 sentence with no filler or repetition. It front-loads the action and resource, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.
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 description plus the fully covered schema give an agent enough basics to invoke the tool, but there are no behavioral notes, no usage context, and no output expectations. Since it is a simple three-parameter mutation, this is minimally viable but still leaves selection ambiguity among similar sibling tools.
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 each parameter is already documented. The description adds no meaning beyond restating that layout mode and wrap behavior are affected. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the burden, and the description neither adds nor conflicts with parameter details.
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 names a specific verb ('Set'), a resource ('a frame in Figma'), and the affected properties ('layout mode and wrap behavior'). It is clear enough to identify the tool's core function, but it does not distinguish itself from sibling layout-related tools like set_axis_align or set_layout_sizing.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites such as the frame needing to be an auto-layout frame, and no exclusions. The only usage signal is implied by the verb and resource, which is not enough for an agent to reliably choose between this and similar layout tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.