tldraw_set_opacity

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action and valid range, omitting details like side effects (e.g., overwriting existing opacity), reversibility, required permissions, or return value. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient.

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 front-loads the action and key detail (opacity range). No redundant words.

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?

With only 2 parameters, no output schema, and a simple mutation, the description provides the essential range information. However, it lacks details on the outcome (e.g., shapes are updated, no return value) which could help an agent confirm success. Slightly above adequate.

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% and both parameters have descriptions. The description '0 = transparent, 1 = fully opaque' adds conceptual context but largely reiterates the schema's 'Opacity value (0-1)' and 'minimum: 0, maximum: 1'. It does not explain how to obtain shapeIds. Thus, it meets baseline but does not significantly compensate.

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 'Set opacity of shapes' with the specific range (0=transparent, 1=opaque). It clearly identifies the action and resource, and distinguishes from sibling tools like tldraw_update_shape_props or tldraw_restyle_shapes, which affect multiple properties.

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 usage for setting opacity with a valid range, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., tldraw_restyle_shapes) or provide prerequisites (e.g., shapes must exist). No 'when not to use' guidance is given.

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