set_stroke_color

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

With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the stroke color is set, without explaining whether the stroke already must exist, whether multiple strokes are affected, whether the change replaces or adds to the existing style, or what happens on invalid input. Basic mutation is conveyed, but no meaningful behavioral depth is added.

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, tightly written sentence with no filler or repetition. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy for an agent to scan and understand quickly.

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 mutation tool with six parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too thin. It does not mention what the tool returns, whether it requires a selected node, how the optional weight parameter interacts with the stroke, or any failure modes. The schema covers the parameters, but the surrounding context needed for safe invocation is largely absent.

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%, so every parameter is already documented in the input schema. The description adds no extra parameter-level meaning beyond 'stroke color', which is sufficient given the schema's thorough per-property descriptions. The baseline score of 3 applies.

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 and resource: 'Set the stroke color of a node in Figma'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_fill_color and set_corner_radius. The intent is immediately understandable and unambiguous.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as set_fill_color, nor any mention of prerequisites like having a selected node or an existing stroke. The purpose implies usage in a basic way, but the description provides no explicit context or exclusions.

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