figma_set_stroke

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention that the stroke settings will be replaced, whether alpha is supported, or any side effects. The description only states a basic action, leaving the agent unaware of important behavioral details.

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 with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and easily parsed. However, it is arguably too sparse, but conciseness rewards efficiency, and this is maximally concise.

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?

This is a mutation tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. The one-sentence description fails to provide essential context such as default values, behavior when applied to unsupported nodes, or how existing stroke properties are affected. The description is incomplete for the tool's complexity.

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 only 40%, so the description should compensate by explaining key parameters. However, the description mentions no parameters at all. It does not clarify that color is required, nor the meanings of weight, dashPattern, or strokeAlign, beyond what the raw schema already provides.

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 stroke (border) of a node' is a precise verb+resource statement. It clearly identifies the action (setting) and the target (stroke/border), and this inherently distinguishes it from sibling tools like figma_set_fill or figma_set_corner_radius.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, node types that support stroke, or cases where other tools might be more appropriate. The description simply states the function without contextual usage advice.

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