set_opacity

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false (mutation) and destructiveHint=false, which the description supports by stating it sets opacity and returns a result. The description adds the return format but no further behavioral details (e.g., side effects, permission requirements). This is adequate but minimal.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the action and returns value. Every word earns its place; there is no verbosity or 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?

For a simple property-setting tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently covers the return value and parameter range. It omits edge-case behavior (e.g., invalid node ID), but the input schema provides boundaries. Siblings like set_fills are more complex; this tool is straightforward.

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 100%, so both nodeId and opacity are documented. The description repeats the 0–1 range already in the schema, adding no new meaning. With full schema coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Set'), the target resource ('node's opacity'), and the valid range ('0–1'). It unambiguously indicates what the tool does and distinguishes it from siblings like set_visible or set_blend_mode.

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 alternative property-setting tools such as set_fills or set_effects. The description lacks context about prerequisites, use cases, or exclusions.

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