Conduit

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

The description adds value beyond annotations by specifying the return format ('Array containing a text message with the updated node(s) ID(s) or a summary'), which isn't covered in annotations. Annotations provide rich behavioral details (e.g., 'idempotentHint: true', 'destructiveHint: false', 'edgeCaseWarnings'), and the description doesn't contradict them. However, it could mention batch processing capabilities more explicitly, though annotations cover this via 'extraInfo'.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded: the first sentence clearly states the purpose, and the second sentence specifies the return format. There's no wasted text, and every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy.

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 (batch operations, multiple application methods) and rich annotations (which cover safety, idempotency, and edge cases), the description is reasonably complete. It explains the core action and return values, though it could benefit from more explicit guidance on usage scenarios. The lack of an output schema is mitigated by the description's return format details.

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 description doesn't add parameter-specific details beyond what's in the input schema, which has 100% schema description coverage. It mentions 'one or more nodes' and 'directly or by style variable', which align with the 'entries' parameter but don't provide additional syntax or format insights. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the schema adequately documents parameters.

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 tool's purpose: 'Set a gradient on one or more nodes in Figma, either directly or by style variable.' It specifies the verb ('Set'), resource ('gradient'), target ('one or more nodes in Figma'), and two application methods. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_gradient_style' or 'set_fill_and_stroke', which might handle similar operations.

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 by mentioning two application methods ('directly or by style variable'), but doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to choose one method over the other or when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_gradient_style' or 'set_fill_and_stroke'. The annotations include 'extraInfo' and 'edgeCaseWarnings' that offer some context, but the description itself lacks clear when-to-use directives.

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