set_stroke

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it only restates the basic action. It does not disclose whether an existing stroke is overwritten, what happens when only nodeId is passed, that this is a mutating operation, or how unspecified optional properties behave.

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, direct sentence with no filler; the core purpose is stated immediately and every word earns its place.

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 description is too thin for a six-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema. The important qualification that nodeId is the only required field is left entirely to the schema, and the agent gets no context about the stroke being updated vs added or about parameter interactions such as dashPattern with weight.

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 input schema covers all six parameters with descriptions, names, a required marker for nodeId, and defaults for align and weight, so the description need not repeat this. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, which is acceptable given 100% schema 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 ('Add') and a clear resource ('border/stroke to a node'), immediately distinguishing this tool from fill- and effect-oriented siblings such as set_fill and set_effects. It fully conveys what visual property is being modified.

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 choose set_stroke over related alternatives, nor any mention of when not to use it. Even though sibling names hint at related tools, the description leaves all selection reasoning to the agent.

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