set_corner_radius

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only states the mutation action without disclosing behavioral traits such as whether the change is undoable, if it applies only to specific node types, or any permission requirements. The description does not add value beyond the schema in this dimension.

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 consists of a single, clear sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. It is appropriately concise with no unnecessary words.

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 simple mutation tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient. However, it lacks context about what happens if the node does not support corner radius, or how the corners parameter interacts with the radius. With no annotations, more context would be beneficial.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for all properties, so the description does not need to add parameter details. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description does not enhance understanding of the parameters beyond the schema.

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 the corner radius of a node in Figma' clearly specifies the action (set), the resource (corner radius), and the context (Figma). It distinguishes itself from other setter tools like set_fill_color or set_stroke_color by focusing on a specific 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when a node supports corner rounding or when other tools like reshape would be more appropriate. There is no mention of prerequisites or exclusions.

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