apply_backdrop_blur

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, but it only states that a blur is applied. It does not disclose whether the tool replaces or appends to existing effects on the frame, what the 'backdrop' semantics mean for layers behind the frame, or any side effects or prerequisites. 'Frosted glass' hints at backdrop behavior but does not make it explicit.

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?

A single efficient sentence with no filler — the action verb is front-loaded and the parenthetical adds useful clarifying context about the visual effect. It earns high marks for brevity, though the available space could have carried more behavioral context.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin. It omits side effects (whether existing effects are overwritten), the meaning of 'backdrop' relative to other layers, and routing guidance against closely related siblings — all material gaps when an agent chooses among nearly 200 sibling tools.

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 already documents both parameters (amount with a default of 16, nodeId as target frame). The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Apply') with a precise resource ('background blur' / 'frosted glass effect') and target ('to a frame'), making the operation immediately identifiable and free of tautology. The parenthetical gives the agent the visual outcome, which distinguishes it from generic effect tools like set_effects, though the overlap is not explicitly addressed.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus the many sibling effect and style tools (set_effects, create_glassmorphism, remove_all_effects, set_blend_mode, etc.). There are no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions stated, so the agent must infer the appropriate context from the name alone.

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