set_stroke_color

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that clear:true removes strokes, that color accepts hex/strokeHex or r/g/b with two numeric ranges, and enumerates the enum-like string values. It does not state permissions, whether existing strokes are overwritten, or any return behavior, leaving meaningful gaps for a mutation tool.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose in the first clause, then a compact enumeration of options. It is dense but every clause maps to a real parameter, so little is wasted; the long single sentence is slightly hard to parse but efficient overall.

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 14-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers most parameters and the clear/apply-style modes, which is reasonably complete. However, it omits the opacity parameter and any note on side effects or required permissions, leaving gaps that structured fields do not fill.

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 coverage is low (43%), so the description must compensate, and it largely does: it explains hex/strokeHex, r/g/b with the 0..1 or 0..255 range, strokeWeight, strokeAlign, dashPattern (with example), strokeCap, strokeJoin, styleId, and clear. Only opacity goes unmentioned, so the description adds substantial meaning beyond the bare 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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Set or clear a node's stroke.' This clearly distinguishes it from the fill-oriented siblings (set_fill_color, figma_set_solid_fill). It stops short of explicitly naming an alternative, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternatives. The mention of 'clear:true to remove strokes' and 'styleId to apply a paint style' hints at two modes, but the agent must infer when to pick this over apply_stroke_style or bind_color_variable_to_stroke.

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