apply-effect-template

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 implies a mutation operation ('apply') but fails to detail critical aspects like whether this action is reversible, requires specific permissions, affects project state, or has side effects. This is inadequate for a tool that modifies content.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (applying effects in After Effects with 4 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It misses behavioral details, usage context, and output expectations, leaving significant gaps for an agent to operate effectively.

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 parameters. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond implying the tool uses 'predefined' templates, which aligns with the 'templateName' enum but doesn't enhance understanding of parameters like 'compIndex' or 'customSettings'. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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') and target ('a predefined effect template to a layer in After Effects'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'apply-effect' or 'mcp_aftereffects_applyEffectTemplate', which appear to serve similar functions, preventing a perfect score.

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 'apply-effect' or 'setLayerExpression', nor does it mention prerequisites like needing an open After Effects project or specific layer types. This leaves the agent without context for tool selection.

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