figcraft_set_properties

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It says the target must already exist, but does not disclose whether props are merged into or replace existing styling, whether the operation is reversible or undoable, what happens to property families omitted from props, or what the call returns on success or partial failure. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage this is a substantial omission.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and the property enumeration, with no filler. It is efficient rather than padded; the shortfall is under-specification, not verbosity.

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?

The tool mutates the document, accepts a nested free-form props object, has no annotations, and has no output schema. Against that complexity the description answers only 'what categories can I set' and leaves merge semantics, validation failures, and return behavior unaddressed, so an agent cannot confidently call it on an existing node.

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 nominally 100%, but the props parameter is a free-form object with additionalProperties: {}, so the schema itself explains almost nothing about expected keys or value formats. The description partially compensates by naming the supported property categories, which is genuinely additive for an untyped bag. It still gives no key names, value shapes (e.g. color format, radius units), or guidance for nested auto-layout objects.

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 (change/update) and resource (visual properties on an existing canvas node) and enumerates the property families covered: fills, stroke, typography, corner radius, corner smoothing, effects, auto-layout. That is concrete enough to separate it from create_node or create_autolayout_frame, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 phrase 'pada node yang ada di kanvas' implicitly scopes it to nodes that already exist, which is a small hint versus creation tools. But there is no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as create_node or batch for applying the same change to many nodes.

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