set_gradient

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool replaces all existing fills, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it omits details like error conditions, permission requirements, or node type constraints.

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?

Two well-structured sentences: first states purpose, second adds constraints. No superfluous content, front-loaded with key information.

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's moderate complexity (4 parameters, nested objects) and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior and parameter roles. It could be improved by noting prerequisites (e.g., node must exist and accept fills) but is sufficient for basic use.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so the description adds minimal value beyond the schema. It mentions the gradient types and a default for gradientTransform, but these are already specified in the schema.

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 a gradient fill on a node'), specifies the resource ('node in Figma'), and lists supported gradient types, distinguishing it from sibling tools like set_fill_color and set_image_fill.

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 mentions that the tool 'Replaces all existing fills' and notes the same behavior as set_fill_color, providing context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools for other fill types.

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