Set or clear a stroke

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

Annotations already signal mutability and destructiveness, and the description adds useful behavioral detail: replacing all existing strokes rather than appending, and removing the stroke entirely with remove: true. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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?

Three sentences with no filler: the main behavior, the removal mode, and the key alternative are each front-loaded and useful. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

The description is nearly complete for a 5-parameter mutation tool with rich schema coverage. It covers the primary behavior, the remove variant, and the fill-vs-stroke distinction. It doesn't describe return values or side effects on unmentioned stroke properties, but those are minor given the schema and annotations.

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%, so the schema already documents color, nodeId, remove, weight, and opacity. The description adds conceptual meaning around stroke-as-outline and the role of remove, but doesn't substantially extend parameter-level semantics beyond the schema.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Replaces a node’s strokes with one solid colour'. It also explicitly distinguishes strokes from fills and from figma_set_fill, so an agent can tell this tool apart from the closest sibling.

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 gives direct when-to-use guidance: 'a row outline or an icon drawn as an outline needs this rather than figma_set_fill'. It also explains the remove: true case for clearing strokes, giving clear conditions for both configuration modes.

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