set_corner_radius

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Set', implying mutation, but does not state whether the operation is reversible, how the optional 'corners' array affects behavior (e.g., whether all corners are rounded by default), or whether any node type is valid. This is a significant gap for a write operation.

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 one concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the action and object. Perfectly sized for a simple setter tool.

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 modifies a node, but the description lacks context about the optional 'corners' behavior, default values, or return value. Since there is no output schema and no annotations, the description should clarify these details. The single sentence leaves the agent uncertain about edge cases, making it incomplete for a tool with a nuanced optional parameter.

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 the schema already explains nodeId, radius, and corners. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the tool name. Baseline for high coverage is 3, which is appropriate here since the description doesn't clarify parameter interactions (e.g., what happens if corners is omitted).

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 'Set the corner radius of a node in Figma', using a specific verb ('set') and resource ('corner radius of a node'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that set other properties like fill color or stroke color. While it doesn't mention the optional corners parameter, the core purpose is 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, no prerequisites (e.g., node must be a frame or have a radius property), and no exclusions. It only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer context from the sibling list.

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