set_strokes

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

Beyond the minimal annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses that omitted fields are left unchanged, per-side weights override strokeWeight, and the return shape is { ok, nodeId }. It also hints at node-specific support for per-side weights. This provides meaningful behavioral context without contradicting the 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 dense but efficient, with each sentence contributing essential information. It front-loads the main action, then lists optional parameters, gives an override rule, states omission semantics, and ends with the return value. The reference to set_fills avoids repeating paint structure details, keeping it concise.

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?

With 9 parameters, no output schema, and minimal annotations, the description covers the key aspects: available parameters, override behavior, omission semantics, and return value. It does not mention failure cases (e.g., node not supporting strokes) or how to specify gradients beyond referencing set_fills, but it is sufficiently complete for a complex tool.

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?

The schema already covers all 9 parameters with descriptions, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds value by explaining relationships: per-side weight overrides strokeWeight, dashPattern is dashes, and the strokes array has the 'same shape as set_fills'. This goes beyond what the schema states, clarifying how parameters interact.

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 sets a node's strokes (SOLID or gradient paints) plus optional stroke properties, which is a specific verb+resource. It explicitly references set_fills as a sibling to distinguish strokes from fills, and lists the exact optional properties (strokeWeight, strokeAlign, dashPattern, per-side weights). This fully differentiates it from sibling tools like set_fills or set_effects.

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 implies when to use this tool by referencing set_fills (use set_fills for fills, set_strokes for strokes) and provides clear context for optional parameters. It notes per-side weights are 'for nodes that support individual stroke weights' and gives an example (border-bottom-only divider), which is useful guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to other stroke-related tools beyond set_fills.

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