set_shape

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one genuinely non-obvious behavior: setting fill/stroke to 'none' removes them, which is destructive context an agent needs. However it omits whether unspecified properties are merged or replaced, permissions, and what the response contains.

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?

A single tight sentence with the destructive behavior parenthetically front-loaded. No wasted words, though the brevity reflects under-specification as much as 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?

For a 10-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, one sentence is far from complete. Merge semantics, required layer behavior, and the meaning of most parameters are missing.

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 0% across 10 parameters, so the description must compensate. It only clarifies fill/stroke semantics and implies layer; h, w, kind, points, radius, project, and stroke_width remain entirely undocumented in both schema and description.

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 and resource ("Change a shape layer"), which is clearly distinct from the sibling add_shape (create). An agent can tell this mutates an existing shape. It does not, however, say which aspect of the layer is changed beyond fill/stroke, leaving the scope of the operation somewhat open.

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 use this versus add_shape, set_fill, set_transform, or paint_stroke. The only conditional given is an inline note about 'none', not a usage rule. No prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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