set_layout_sizing

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, yet it discloses nothing beyond scope. It omits whether auto-layout must already be enabled, that HUG applies only to auto-layout/text and FILL only to auto-layout children, or any error/permission behavior for this mutation.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, efficiently conveying verb, resource, and target node types. Slightly long and list-heavy, but nothing is 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?

For a no-annotation mutation tool with full schema coverage but no output schema, the description identifies the operation adequately but leaves out prerequisites and mode-applicability constraints an agent needs to call it correctly. Minimum-viable rather than 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 100%, so the schema already documents nodeId and both sizing enums (including the HUG/FILL applicability notes). The description adds no parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, which lands at the baseline 3.

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?

States a specific verb ('Set') plus the resource ('horizontal and vertical sizing modes') and enumerates the applicable node types (frame, component, component set, instance, text node). An agent can distinguish this from resize_node or set_frame_properties, though it never names or contrasts those siblings explicitly.

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 description names no conditions for choosing this tool over the nearby set_layout_mode, resize_node, or set_frame_properties tools, and gives no when-not guidance. It implies context only by listing eligible node types; there is no routing information.

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