create_border_gradient

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the non-obvious technique of using a slightly larger frame behind, which hints at structural side effects. However, it does not explain whether a new frame is created, whether the node is reparented, how depth/stacking is handled, or whether this is reversible.

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, focused sentence that communicates the core action and implementation approach without filler. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity and front-loads the primary purpose.

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 tool mutates the design tree by introducing a frame behind the target, but the description does not mention return values, side effects on layout, grouping, or what happens to existing borders. For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, this is under-specified for an agent to call confidently.

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%, so the parameter documentation already covers nodeId, startColor, endColor, and width. The description adds no additional meaning about color format, width defaults, or units beyond what the schema states, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Create') and names the resource ('gradient border effect'), and it clarifies the implementation approach ('using a slightly larger frame behind'). This distinguishes it from related tools like set_stroke or set_gradient_fill, though it could more precisely state that it creates a new frame behind the target node.

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?

No guidance is given for when to use this tool versus alternatives such as set_gradient_fill, set_stroke, or create_frame. There are no conditions, exclusions, or mentions of when the frame-based approach is preferable, leaving the selection decision to the agent.

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