batch_set_corner_radius

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does convey the core behavioral traits: batch application, restriction to frame/rectangle nodes (others presumably untouched), and scoping under a root node. It does not disclose side effects (e.g., overriding existing radii), reversibility, or behavior on mixed selections, which are meaningful gaps for a mutating batch 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?

A single 10-word sentence is front-loaded with the action, target, and scope. There is zero wasted text — every word carries meaning. The brevity is appropriate given the two simple, self-describing parameters.

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 2-param batch mutation with no output schema and no annotations, the description plus schema cover what, where, and scope. It omits what happens to non-frame/rectangle nodes, whether existing radii are replaced, and whether any result is returned. These are not fatal gaps, but the tool performs enough work that a sentence on behavior/return would round it out.

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 description coverage is 100% (nodeId='Root node', radius='Corner radius'), so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema; it clarifies that nodeId defines the batch scope but does not specify radius units, range, or application behavior. The schema already carries most of the parameter semantics.

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-resource pair ('Set corner radius') plus a precise scope qualifier ('all frames/rectanglеs in scope'), which distinguishes it from the sibling set_corner_radius (single node) and the other batch_* tools. 'In scope' is slightly ambiguous on its own, but the nodeId 'Root node' parameter resolves the intended meaning.

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?

Usage context is implied: the 'batch' prefix and 'all frames/rectangles in scope' signal choosing this tool when many nodes need the same radius, versus set_corner_r_adius for a single node. However, it never names the alternative or states explicit when/when-not conditions; an agent must infer the distinction from the sibling list.

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