ass_set_scaled_border_and_shadow

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies mutation via 'Set' and lists return fields, but says nothing about document persistence, permissions, undo behavior, or side effects beyond the output schema.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The action and allowed values are front-loaded, and the return shape is compactly stated.

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 no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It omits the meaning of 'doc_id' and any context about scope or required permissions, even though the output schema already covers the return fields.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for both parameters. It clarifies that 'value' accepts yes/no, which is useful, but it never explains 'doc_id' or what happens when it 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 states a specific verb ('Set') and the exact ASS property ('ScaledBorderAndShadow'), including allowed values ('yes'/'no'). That makes the purpose clear, but it does not distinguish this tool from generic sibling setters such as ass_set_script_info.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or scope. The only implied usage is setting the named property, with no exclusions or sibling routing.

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