set_gradient_fill

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

With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the shape of the fill payload (stops with position/color, normalized from/to points) and that some parameters are optional, but it never states whether the gradient replaces or is appended to existing paints, what paintIndex refers to, or any permission/mutation semantics.

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?

Compact, front-loaded, and free of filler; the gradient types and payload shape come first. Slightly telegraphic in the trailing 'opacity, paintIndex' list, which names parameters without explaining them.

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 7-parameter mutation tool with nested objects, zero schema coverage, no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core data shapes but omits mutation semantics (replace vs add), paintIndex behavior, and value ranges. Adequate but leaves real gaps an agent would hit at call time.

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 usefully documents the stops structure (position 0..1, color {r,g,b[,a]}), the normalized from/to coordinates, and the gradient type values that are absent from the schema enum. However, opacity range, paintIndex meaning, and nodeId semantics remain unexplained, so compensation is partial.

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 (Set) plus resource (gradient fill) on a node, and enumerates the supported gradient types. It is clearly separable from siblings like figma_set_solid_fill and set_image_fill by the resource itself.

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 choose this over figma_set_solid_fill or set_image_fill, nor any prerequisite or exclusion. Usage is only implied by the name and the presence of gradient types.

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