figma_set_strokes

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

No annotations exist, so the description bears the full behavioral burden. It adds real value with the wide-gamut color-format support, the variable-binding path, and the plan-agnostic bridge note, but it omits key mutation semantics: whether the strokes array replaces existing strokes or appends, and what happens on invalid node IDs.

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?

Three tight sentences with zero filler; the core action is front-loaded and the token-binding tip follows in a logical order. Nothing repeated verbatim from the schema is gratuitous.

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 three-parameter mutation tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers color input, weight, and variable binding adequately. The only real gap is the undocumented replace-vs-append behavior of the strokes array, which matters for an agent calling it repeatedly.

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 all three parameters are already documented in detail, including color formats and variableId sourcing. The description restates the color formats and the optional weight without adding syntax or constraints beyond the schema; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Set the stroke (border) on a node') and immediately scopes the accepted inputs. It is unmistakably distinct from the sibling figma_set_fills, which handles a different paint property.

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 gives a clear usage path for the token/variable case (pass variableId) and notes it works on any Figma plan via the bridge. However, it never states when to prefer this over figma_set_fills or figma_execute, nor any precondition such as needing a selected node or edit permission.

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