set_stroke_color

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only indicates a mutation ('Set') but does not disclose potential side effects, required node types, permissions, or reversibility. The minimal wording adds no transparency beyond the obvious.

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 sentence that is succinct and front-loaded. It conveys the essential action and resource without unnecessary words or repetition, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 has 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not explain when to use the tool, what node types support strokes, or how the operation behaves (e.g., whether it overrides existing strokes). The one-sentence description leaves significant gaps for a mutation 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 descriptions cover all 6 parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description itself does not add any extra semantic meaning; it just relies on the schema's existing parameter descriptions, which are adequate. No additional context is needed beyond what the schema provides.

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 'Set the stroke color of a node in Figma' clearly states the action (set) and the resource (stroke color of a node). It is specific and unambiguous. However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like set_fill_color, so it lacks sibling differentiation.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., set_fill_color) or any contextual requirements. There is no mention of prerequisites or exclusions, leaving usage entirely implied by the tool's name and description.

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