Set Corner Radius

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

Annotations indicate openWorldHint and idempotentHint. The description adds that the corner radius can be set uniformly or per-corner, which is already implicit from the schema parameters. It does not disclose side effects, such as what happens to existing corner radii or if the node type supports corner radius. With annotations covering safety, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 is front-loaded with the core action. It contains no filler words and efficiently conveys the key functionality. Every word earns its place.

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?

With 4 parameters, 100% schema coverage, an output schema present, and annotations provided, the description is adequate. It might be missing details like whether the radius applies to all corners if corners is omitted, but the schema covers that implicitly. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for a simple property setter.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description hints at the difference between uniform (using only radius) and per-corner (using corners array) but adds little new meaning beyond the schema. The baseline of 3 is correct because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Set a node's corner radius — uniform or per-corner' clearly states the action (set corner radius) and the resource (node). It distinguishes from sibling tools like node_set_fill or node_set_stroke by specifying the exact property being modified. The mention of uniform and per-corner options adds specificity.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as whether it should be used before or after other node modifications, or scenarios where other tools are more appropriate. There is no mention of prerequisites or exclusions.

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