Conduit

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

Annotations already cover key behaviors (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true), but the description adds useful context by specifying the return format ('Array of objects... with the updated node's ID'). This disclosure of output structure goes beyond annotations, though it doesn't mention side effects like visual changes in Figma.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by return details. Both sentences earn their place by providing essential information, though the return format could be more succinctly integrated.

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 rich annotations (covering safety, idempotency, edge cases) and full schema coverage, the description is reasonably complete. It explains the action and return format, though it could better address prerequisites or integration with sibling tools for a perfect score.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema fully documents both parameters ('radius' and optional 'corners'). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 without compensating value.

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 ('Sets') and resource ('corner radius of a node in Figma'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from other node-modification siblings like 'set_fill_and_stroke' or 'set_effect', which would require a 5.

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 versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a node ID from another tool), nor does it compare with similar tools like 'set_node' or 'set_node_prop' that might also modify node properties.

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