apply-effect

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'apply' implies a write/mutation operation, the description doesn't address important behavioral aspects like whether this requires specific permissions, what happens if the effect already exists, whether the operation is reversible, or what happens on failure. 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 extremely concise - a single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the essential information and contains zero wasted content.

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 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects, doesn't explain what happens after the effect is applied, doesn't mention error conditions, and doesn't differentiate from similar sibling tools. The description leaves too many contextual gaps for effective tool selection and invocation.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, meaning all 7 parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema. According to the scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no parameter information in the description.

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 ('apply an effect') and target ('to a layer in After Effects'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'apply-effect-template' or 'mcp_aftereffects_applyEffect', which appear to have similar functionality.

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. With multiple sibling tools that appear related to applying effects (apply-effect-template, mcp_aftereffects_applyEffect, mcp_aftereffects_applyEffectTemplate), there's no indication of when this specific tool is appropriate versus those alternatives.

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