set_annotation_stroke_property

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It lists the modifiable properties and mentions a confirmation return value, but fails to discuss side effects, error conditions, or prerequisites (e.g., whether the stroke must exist).

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 well-structured with Args and Returns sections, and is concise. It could be slightly more terse, but it effectively conveys the necessary information without extraneous detail.

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 covers parameter semantics and basic return type, but lacks behavioral context (e.g., error handling, constrains on value) and does not leverage the output schema for richer explanation. It is adequate for a simple setter but not fully complete.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description adds significant value by explaining each parameter's role, including the allowed values for 'property' (line_width, material_index, display_mode) and the 0-based index for stroke_index.

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 the action: 'Set a property on an annotation stroke.' It specifies the resource (annotation stroke) and the operation (setting a property), distinguishing it from sibling tools that add layers or strokes.

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?

The description implicitly indicates usage by listing required parameters, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to modify a stroke property versus adding a new stroke or layer.

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