figma_set_corner_radius

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states the action without mentioning potential side effects, such as overwriting existing corner radii, whether the change is reversible, if it affects child nodes, or if specific permissions are required. This is a minimal disclosure that adds little beyond the tool name.

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, which is concise, but it omits critical information about parameters and behavior. This is under-specification rather than effective conciseness, as every sentence (only one) should earn its place but does not convey enough to properly use the tool.

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 tool's complexity (6 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain how to use the parameters, the difference between uniform and per-corner radii, or what happens after the operation. The agent would need to guess or inspect the schema, which has no 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no parameter explanations. The relationship between the uniform 'radius' parameter and the individual corner parameters is undefined, leaving the agent without any semantic understanding beyond raw schema names.

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 verb 'set' and the resource 'corner radius' of a node, which is distinct from sibling tools that set other properties. However, it fails to mention that individual corner radii (topLeft, topRight, bottomLeft, bottomRight) can be set, leaving out a major part of the tool's functionality.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as node selection or type restrictions, and no exclusions or recommendations relative to other set_* tools.

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