Conduit

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a mutation operation ('Sets') but does not specify whether this requires specific permissions, if changes are reversible, what happens to existing styles not mentioned, or any rate limits. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior and risks.

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 key action and resources without any wasted words. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, 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 complexity (7 parameters, mutation operation) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain return values, error conditions, or behavioral nuances, leaving the agent with incomplete information to invoke the tool safely and effectively.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting all 7 parameters, including their purposes and constraints (e.g., 'Provide either nodeId or nodeIds, not both'). The description adds minimal value by summarizing the parameters but does not provide additional syntax, format details, or examples beyond what the schema already covers.

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 the resources ('fill and/or stroke color(s) and/or stroke weight for one or more nodes'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'set_gradient' or 'set_effect', which might handle similar styling aspects, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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, such as 'set_gradient' for gradient fills or 'set_effect' for effects. It lacks context on prerequisites, like whether nodes must be selected or exist, and does not mention any exclusions or best practices for usage.

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