set_blend_mode

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

The description mentions the return format { ok, nodeId } but does not disclose behavioral traits beyond the annotations. With destructiveHint: false, it implies mutation is not destructive, yet no details on reversibility, permissions, or side effects are provided.

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, consisting of a single sentence plus a brief return hint. Every word contributes meaning, and the structure is front-loaded with the core action.

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 simple two-parameter tool, the description provides the essential purpose and return format. However, it lacks details about nodeId semantics and usage context, making it minimally adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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 50% with only blendMode having a description. The tool's description adds example values for blendMode (NORMAL, MULTIPLY, etc.) but does not clarify nodeId beyond its string type. This adds marginal value but leaves half the parameter under-described.

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 action: 'Set a node's blend mode' with examples like NORMAL, MULTIPLY, etc. It is specific and directly matches the tool name, making purpose unambiguous even among many sibling 'set_*' tools.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as set_effects or set_opacity. There are no preconditions, context, or exclusion criteria, leaving agents to infer appropriate usage on their own.

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