set_corner_radius

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely states 'Set the corner radius' without mentioning side effects, node type compatibility, mutation behavior, or whether the operation is reversible. This leaves significant gaps for an agent.

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 of nine words. It is front-loaded with the essential action and resource, containing no redundant or filler content.

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?

Despite full schema coverage, the description is too thin for a mutation tool with no annotations. It omits important context such as the default behavior when the optional 'corners' parameter is omitted, which node types support corner radius, and the effect of the mutation (e.g., immediate visual change). This incomplete picture may lead to incorrect agent behavior.

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 description coverage is 100%, with all three parameters (nodeId, radius, corners) having descriptions. The high schema coverage means the description does not need to add parameter details, and indeed it does not. Baseline 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 'Set the corner radius of a node in Figma', using a specific verb ('Set') and resource ('corner radius'). This unambiguously distinguishes it from other sibling tools like set_fill_color or set_stroke_color, which operate on different node properties.

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, nor any prerequisites or contraindications. The description only states what it does, leaving the AI agent to infer usage from the tool's name.

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