set_corner_radius

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must bear the full burden. It only states that the tool sets a corner radius, but fails to disclose that the corners parameter can selectively round specific corners, whether the mutation is destructive or reversible, or what the tool returns. This is significant for a mutation 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It conveys the essential purpose efficiently, 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 tool is relatively simple with 3 parameters and a comprehensive schema, but there is no output schema and no annotations. The description does not mention the optional corners behavior or what happens after execution, leaving the context incomplete but minimally viable.

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 has 100% coverage for all parameters, including detailed descriptions for nodeId, radius, and the corners array. Since the schema already provides the necessary semantics, the description adds no additional parameter information, which aligns with the baseline of 3.

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 clearly states a specific action (set) on a specific resource (the corner radius of a node in Figma). It distinguishes this from sibling tools like set_fill_color or resize_node by naming the exact property 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?

No guidance is given for when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when a node type may not support corner radius or if there are prerequisites. The intended use is only implied by the name and description.

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