Set Stroke

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

The description adds a useful behavioral nuance ('supports uniform or per-side weights') beyond what annotations provide. However, it does not disclose details like replacing existing strokes, the nodeName verification requirement, or how parameters interact (e.g., whether side weights override uniform weight). Annotations indicate idempotentHint, so safety is partially covered, but the description remains thin on other behavioral aspects.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It conveys the core action, target, and key mode distinction in 13 words, achieving maximum efficiency and readability.

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 full schema coverage, output schema, and annotations, the description is adequately complete for a setter tool. It tells the agent what the tool does and the primary decision (uniform vs per-side weights). It doesn't explicitly note that weight is optional or that nodeName serves as a consistency check, but those are covered by the schema and output schema, so the description fills its intended role.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantic grouping by distinguishing 'uniform' (the `weight` parameter) from 'per-side' (the stroke*Weight parameters), clarifying how to choose between them. This goes beyond the individual schema descriptions and helps the agent select the right parameters for the desired outcome.

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 ('a node's stroke color and weight'), which is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like node_set_fill or node_set_corner_radius. The mention of 'uniform or per-side weights' adds further specificity, making it unambiguous.

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 clear context: it is the tool for setting stroke properties on a node. Although it doesn't explicitly name alternatives, the scope is well-defined ('a node's stroke'), making it obvious when to use this tool versus other node_set_* siblings. No exclusions or alternatives are stated, but the specificity makes the usage clear.

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