set_stroke_color

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool modifies a node, implying mutation, but doesn't describe what happens on success/failure, whether changes are reversible, if it requires specific permissions, or any side effects. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, directly stating the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration.

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 mutation tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error conditions, or behavioral context. While the schema covers parameters well, the overall context for using this tool remains incomplete.

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 fully documents all 6 parameters (nodeId, r, g, b, a, weight). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage without adding extra value.

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 target resource ('stroke color of a node in Figma'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'set_fill_color' or 'set_corner_radius', which would require mentioning it's specifically for stroke color rather than other node properties.

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. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid node ID), when not to use it (e.g., for non-stroke elements), or comparisons to sibling tools like 'set_fill_color' for different color properties.

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