set_stroke_variable

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the tool 'binds' a variable, implying a dynamic link rather than a static change, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this overrides existing bindings, requires specific permissions, affects other properties, or has side effects. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Bind a color variable to a node's stroke') and adds context ('Use this for theme-compatible border colors') without any wasted words. Every part earns its place, making it easy 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (binding variables to strokes), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the purpose and hints at usage but lacks details on behavior, error conditions, or return values. For a mutation tool in a design context, more information on effects and constraints would be beneficial.

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%, with clear descriptions for all parameters (nodeId, variableId, strokeIndex). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only implying that 'stroke' relates to 'border colors' and 'theme-compatible' suggests variableId refers to a color variable. This meets the baseline of 3 since the schema does the heavy lifting, but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details.

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 ('Bind a color variable') and target ('to a node's stroke'), with the specific purpose of enabling 'theme-compatible border colors.' It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'set_stroke_color' (which sets a fixed color) and 'set_fill_variable' (which binds to fill instead of stroke). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings, such as 'set_stroke_style_id'.

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 implies usage for theme-compatible border colors, suggesting it should be used when dynamic color variables are needed rather than fixed colors. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'set_stroke_color' or 'set_stroke_style_id,' nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., requiring existing variables or nodes). The context is clear but lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons.

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