set_corner_radius

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Set' implies a mutation, but the description says nothing about required permissions, reversibility (undo), what happens to existing radius values, units, or whether the radius field still applies when per-corner values are given.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the primary action and no filler. It is efficient, though arguably it is efficient at the cost of being under-specified rather than genuinely tight.

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?

For a 3-parameter mutation tool with a nested object, zero schema descriptions, no annotations, and no output schema, a single sentence is not enough. The description should clarify the radius/corners interaction, units, and node-type 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It conceptually points at all three parameters (node, radius, per-corner), but the critical ambiguity is unresolved: does the 'radius' value act as a fallback when only some 'corners' are supplied, do per-corner values override it, and what units are used? The schema offers no help either.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Set the corner radius of a node.' An agent can immediately tell what the tool mutates. It does not name or distinguish itself from any sibling (none of the siblings cover corner radius directly, but no routing guidance is offered).

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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative tooling is mentioned. There is no indication of prerequisites such as the node needing to be a rectangle/frame/component with a corner-radius property, nor what to do if the node lacks one.

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