set_corner_radius

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden, but it only states the mutation ('set') and per-corner control. It does not disclose what happens when both radius and per-corner values are supplied, units, supported node types, or side effects/reversibility.

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 single sentence is lean, front-loaded, and free of filler. However, for six parameters and no annotations, it is so terse that it omits material guidance an agent would need to invoke the tool correctly across parameter combinations.

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 six-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain uniform radius vs per-corner behavior, unit expectations, and when to prefer the batch sibling. The current description is too sparse for reliable invocation in all cases.

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 only 33%; nodeId and radius have descriptions, but topLeft, topRight, bottomLeft, and bottomRight are empty. The phrase 'per-corner control' offers a hint, but it does not explain relationships between radius and corner values, defaults, or units, so the description fails to compensate for the low coverage.

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 and resource ('Set corner radius') and adds 'per-corner control' to signal granularity. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from the sibling batch_set_corner_radius or mention that it applies to a single 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus batch_set_corner_radius or other styling tools. The description only implies usage by naming the operation; it does not state when uniform radius should be used instead of per-corner values.

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