design_set_blend

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 identifies a mutation ('Set') but does not mention required permissions, whether changes are reversible, what happens to unspecified properties, or any side effects on the layer. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a substantive gap.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple setter, though slightly under-specified rather than over-long.

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 moderate complexity of a mutation tool with four parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description covers the core action but omits sufficient behavioral context. The schema fully covers parameters, but the description does not help an agent understand side effects, sibling tool selection, or operational constraints.

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%, so the input schema already documents all four parameters including the blend mode enum and opacity range. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, which is acceptable given the high coverage, but it also does not compensate for the missing context about defaults or constraints.

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 states a specific verb ('Set') and resource ('blend mode and/or opacity on a design layer'), which is clear. However, it does not differentiate this tool from the sibling tools design_set_blend_mode and design_update_blend, both of which appear to overlap significantly.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like design_set_blend_mode or design_update_blend, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The 'and/or' phrasing is the only hint that it can set one or both properties, but an agent must infer usage from the name and schema alone.

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