set_corner_radius

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

The description discloses key behavioral details beyond the minimal annotations: per-corner values override the uniform radius for that corner, at least one radius is required, and the tool returns { ok, nodeId }. It also notes that individual corners are supported only on certain nodes, which sets expectations. No contradiction with annotations.

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 three sentences long and front-loaded with the primary action. Each sentence earns its place: the first states the purpose, the second explains the parameters and their context, and the third covers the override and requirement. There is no filler, repetition, or extraneous detail.

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 six parameters, minimal annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: parameter relationships, required input, and return value. It could optionally mention behavior on unsupported nodes (e.g., whether it ignores corner values or throws), but the overall picture is complete enough for an agent to use 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?

Although the schema already documents each parameter (100% coverage), the description adds crucial relational semantics: per-corner values override the uniform radius, and the requirement that at least one radius be provided. This explains how parameters interact, which the JSON schema alone cannot convey. The description elevates the parameter understanding beyond simple field descriptions.

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 opens with 'Set a node's corner radius' – a specific verb and resource that immediately clarifies the tool's core function. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like set_arc or set_fills by focusing solely on corner radius, and further details uniform vs per-corner options. This leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 clear context on when to use per-corner values versus a uniform radius, with examples like 'a card rounded only on top, a tab or a chat bubble'. It also states the requirement that at least one radius parameter must be supplied. While it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools, no sibling tool serves the same purpose, so the guidance is sufficient.

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