set_corner_radius

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose what happens when both 'radius' and per-corner parameters are set, whether the operation is destructive, or any side effects like overwriting previous corner radii.

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 very concise, consisting of a single sentence that conveys the core purpose. However, it could be longer to add more value without losing efficiency.

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 lack of output schema and the six parameters with many empty schema descriptions, the description is insufficient. It misses key behavioral details like parameter interactions, node type restrictions, and return value expectations.

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 low (33%), with only 'nodeId' and 'radius' having descriptions. The tool description mentions 'per-corner control' but does not clarify the relationship between the uniform 'radius' and the four per-corner parameters, nor the behavior when multiple parameters are provided.

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 verb 'Set' and resource 'corner radius', and adds 'with per-corner control' to indicate individual corner adjustment. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from the sibling tool 'batch_set_corner_radius', so the differentiation is implicit.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'batch_set_corner_radius'. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or scenarios where per-corner control is appropriate.

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