set_line_weight

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key behavior that the weight applies to sub-shapes as well as the main shape, which adds useful context. However, it omits other behavioral details like whether the operation is destructive or how errors are handled.

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 a clear verb and object. It includes a helpful example without unnecessary words, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity, the presence of an output schema, and no nested objects, the description provides sufficient context for a simple setter. It states the core action and an important scope detail (sub-shapes), though it could potentially mention error scenarios or the reversibility of the change.

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 schema has zero description coverage, but the description clarifies the 'weight' parameter format via an example ('1.5 pt'). 'shape_id' is left unexplained, though it is a common identifier. The description only partially compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 LineWeight), specifies the target (a shape and its sub-shapes), and provides an example of the weight format. This unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling tools, none of which handle line weight.

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 use case is implied by the verb and resource ('Set LineWeight on a shape'), but there is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives or any exclusions. The description is self-evident, yet lacks explicit context.

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