set_fill

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does not specify whether fills are replaced or merged, what happens on conflict, or any side effects (e.g., requires node to be selectable). This omission reduces transparency significantly.

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 that efficiently conveys the core purpose and supported fill types. It is not overly verbose, though it could benefit from additional structured details without becoming lengthy.

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 tool's complexity (6 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, no annotations), the description is too sparse. It lacks information on return values, error scenarios, or prerequisites (e.g., node existence, type restrictions). For a tool with multiple fill modes and nested structures, more contextual detail is needed.

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 all 6 parameters. The tool description adds a general overview of supported fill types but does not elaborate on parameter behavior (e.g., how gradient stops are interpreted, opacity interaction with color). Baseline of 3 is appropriate as schema already provides adequate detail.

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 fill' and the resource 'node'. It lists supported fill types (solid, linear, radial, multiple fills), which helps the agent understand the tool's scope. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like set_gradient_fill or set_image_fill, which could lead to ambiguity.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., set_gradient_fill, set_image_fill). It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or context for usage, leaving the agent to infer from the tool name and sibling list.

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