set_node_properties

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that changes apply to every target node, returns per-node ok/error, and that fonts are auto-loaded for text properties. It does not mention whether properties are overwritten or merged, or if there are authorization or rate limit implications, which would have pushed it to 5.

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 paragraph of moderate length. It front-loads the core purpose and then details properties. While efficient, it could be more structured (e.g., bullet points for properties) for easier scanning.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers targeting, property surface, and return format. It lacks information on error handling specifics, reversibility, or concurrency, but is mostly complete given the complexity.

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 only 33% description coverage (only props has a description). The description compensates by listing all property categories (fill, stroke, strokeWeight, etc.) and explaining targeting logic and return format. This adds substantial meaning beyond the sparse schema.

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 verb 'Edit properties on existing nodes' and specifies the resource (nodes). It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'create_node' by noting the same property surface but for existing nodes. Targeting via nodeIds, single nodeId, or selection is explicitly outlined.

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 implicitly indicates when to use this tool (edit existing nodes) versus create_node (create nodes). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like analyze_design for reading properties. The context is clear but lacks exclusionary guidance.

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