Set Corner Radius

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

Annotations declare idempotentHint and openWorldHint, but the description adds little beyond confirming uniform or per-corner behavior. No mention of side effects, permissions, or limitations (e.g., only for rectangular nodes). The description is adequate but not rich.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the core functionality.

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 simple nature of the tool, good schema coverage, and existence of an output schema, the description is nearly complete. However, it could explicitly state that omitting the 'corners' parameter applies radius uniformly, but this is inferable. Still very good.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters with descriptions. The description adds the phrase 'uniform or per-corner' but does not provide additional semantic value beyond what the schema already explains. Baseline 3 applies.

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') and the resource ('node's corner radius'), and specifies the distinction between uniform and per-corner application. This helps differentiate from sibling tools like node_apply_style or node_set_fill.

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 implies usage for setting corner radius but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, or when not to use it. The usage context is only implied by the tool name and brief description.

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