manage_effects

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It transparently lists actions like remove/clear and emit, indicating mutating behavior, but does not disclose side effects, permission requirements, or return format. This is a moderate disclosure for a potentially destructive tool.

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, information-dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then compactly lists actions and effect types. Every word contributes value with no redundancy.

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 description provides a good overview but lacks details on the flexible 'properties' object and the 'name' parameter. It also does not explain output for actions like list, which is a gap given there is no output schema.

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 description adds significant meaning to the action and effectType parameters by enumerating valid effect types and clarifying what emit and toggle do. However, it does not explain the 'properties' or 'name' parameters, so with only 33% schema coverage, some parameters remain under-documented.

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 'Add visual effects to parts' and enumerates specific effect types and actions, giving a precise scope. It does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like manage_lighting, but the name and content make the purpose clear.

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?

Usage is implied through the action list and effect types, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like manage_lighting or manage_scripts. It provides context but no exclusions or alternative recommendations.

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