Set Corner Radius

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

Annotations already provide idempotentHint and openWorldHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond 'uniform or per-corner', which is more about parameter semantics than behavior. It does not disclose side effects, edge cases, or why openWorldHint is set.

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, front-loaded with verb and resource. It conveys the essential capability without unnecessary words or repetition.

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 rich schema, output schema, and annotations, the description is largely complete. It explains the tool's purpose and modes, but omits potential constraints like supported node types or why nodeName is required, though those are partially covered in schema descriptions.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds value by framing the operation as uniform or per-corner, helping the agent understand the optional corners parameter and its purpose. This conceptual distinction enhances the schema descriptions.

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 uses specific verb 'Set' and resource 'node's corner radius', clearly distinguishing from sibling node_* property setters. It also specifies the two modes (uniform or per-corner), which uniquely identifies the tool's scope.

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 modifying corner radius but does not explicitly state when to use it vs alternatives like node_set_fill or node_set_stroke. No exclusions, supported node types, or alternative tool references are provided, leaving usage to be inferred from the name and sibling context.

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