batch_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 burden. It does not disclose whether the operation is destructive, what 'scope' means exactly, or any error conditions. The behavioral impact is unclear.

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 sentence with 9 words, very concise. However, it could benefit from more structure or additional details; the brevity may hinder clarity for complex use cases.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and a simple operation, the description lacks information on return values, error handling, behavior with non-existent or invalid nodes, and exactly what 'in scope' entails. Not complete enough for an agent to reliably invoke.

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 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The tool description adds context that nodeId is the scope root and radius counts for all targets, but does not clarify expected formats or constraints beyond the basic 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 corner radius), the target (all frames/rectangles), and the scope ('in scope'). It distinguishes itself from similar sibling tools like 'set_corner_radius' by indicating batch operation.

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 'all frames/rectangles in scope' implies a batch use case, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., set_corner_radius for single nodes). No guidance on prerequisites or exclusions.

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