set_axis_align

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without mentioning side effects, prerequisites (e.g., frame must already be auto-layout), error handling, or in-place mutation. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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?

One sentence, 13 words, perfectly front-loaded with the action and target. Every word earns its place, with no wasted content.

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 is adequate given the schema's thorough parameter documentation, but it omits important context like whether the frame must already be auto-layout, what happens if it isn't, and that there is no return value. No output schema or annotations increase the need for such context.

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 coverage is 100% with detailed descriptions for both enum parameters, including the SPACE_BETWEEN side effect. The description adds no additional parameter-specific semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 action ('Set') and the specific resources ('primary and counter axis alignment for an auto-layout frame'), making it straightforward to understand what the tool does. It is distinct from sibling tools like set_layout_mode or set_padding because it focuses specifically on alignment.

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 provides a clear context by specifying it applies to 'an auto-layout frame', implying when the tool should be used. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, so while the context is clear, there is no comparative guidance.

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