set_opacity

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the operation itself. It does not reveal what happens with out-of-range opacity values, whether changes are reversible, whether the node must exist, or any rendering side effects. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 clear sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and is efficient for a simple 2-parameter tool, though not as sparse as to become tautological.

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-parameter tool with full schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, as a mutating setter with no annotations and no output schema, it omits behavioral details such as range enforcement, reversibility, and node-existence requirements.

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%, with nodeId documented as 'Target node' and opacity as 'Opacity 0-1'. The description adds no meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is correct.

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 a specific verb and resource — 'set' plus 'node opacity' — making the tool's purpose unambiguous. The property 'opacity' is clearly distinct from sibling setters like set_visibility, set_blend_mode, and set_fill, though the description doesn't explicitly name that differentiation.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or context about typical scenarios, so the agent must infer usage purely from the tool name and the schema's 0-1 range.

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