Set top, bottom, left, and right padding values for a Figma auto-layout frame to control inner spacing around child elements.
Set padding values for an auto-layout frame in Figma
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| nodeId | Yes | The ID of the frame to modify | |
| paddingTop | No | Top padding value | |
| paddingLeft | No | Left padding value | |
| paddingRight | No | Right padding value | |
| paddingBottom | No | Bottom padding value |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It only states that padding values are set, but does not disclose whether unspecified padding values are preserved or reset, whether the frame must already have auto-layout enabled, or what happens if the node is not a valid auto-layout frame.
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 concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. It has no wasted words, though it is somewhat minimal and leaves out behavioral details.
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 there are no annotations or output schema, the description should provide more behavioral context for this mutating tool. It does not explain partial-update behavior, constraints on the target frame, or error conditions, so an agent lacks important information for correct 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?
The input schema covers all parameters with descriptions, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, but it does not need to since the schema already defines nodeId and each padding side clearly.
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 uses a specific verb ('Set'), a clear resource ('padding values'), and a precise scope ('auto-layout frame in Figma'). It is easy to distinguish from sibling tools like set_item_spacing or set_layout_mode because padding is uniquely identified.
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 implies the tool is for auto-layout frames, giving some context, but it does not explicitly say when to choose this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. There is no mention of related tools for spacing or layout adjustments.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.