set_corner_radius

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

Annotations indicate a non-destructive write operation, and the description adds the behavioral detail that per-corner values override the uniform radius and that the tool returns '{ ok, nodeId }'. It also hints that per-corner support depends on node type, but does not fully disclose behavior for unsupported nodes.

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: two sentences that front-load the purpose and efficiently cover parameter usage and return value. No unnecessary information.

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 simplicity and the rich schema annotations, the description covers the essential aspects. It could mention that some nodes do not support per-corner radii, but overall it is complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the overriding relationship between 'radius' and per-corner parameters and providing concrete use cases, thereby enhancing understanding 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Set a node's corner radius.' It explains both uniform and per-corner options, and provides specific examples (card, tab, chat bubble) that distinguish it from other set tools like set_arc.

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 explicit guidance on parameter usage: when to use 'radius' versus per-corner parameters, and that at least one is required. However, it does not explicitly describe when to use this tool versus sibling tools like set_arc or set_layout_props, nor does it state prerequisites or node type restrictions.

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