set_curve_fill

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It lists valid fill values but does not mention side effects, whether the curve must already exist, whether the change is reversible, or what happens on invalid input. For a mutating setter, this is a meaningful 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 extremely concise: a one-line action followed by a compact Args list. Every sentence is informative, and the main action is front-loaded with no filler.

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 simple two-parameter setter, the description is mostly adequate, but with no annotations or output schema it omits usage context and the visual/behavioral meaning of the fill modes. It also does not mention the schema default of FULL, though that is available in the schema.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description is the only source of parameter meaning. It explains curve_name as the curve object name and lists the allowed fill values FULL, HALF, or NONE, which the schema does not enumerate. It does not define what each fill mode means visually, but it provides enough to construct a valid call.

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 states a specific verb ('Set') and resource ('curve fill mode'), and the Args list clarifies the target curve and fill value. It is clear, but it does not differentiate this tool from sibling tools such as set_interpolation or edit_curve_points.

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 mention of prerequisites, and no indication of when it should be preferred over other curve-related tools. The description only states what the tool does, not when to choose it.

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