create_glassmorphism

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the main behavioral traits by enumerating the effect components: background blur, semi-transparent fill, and subtle border. However, it does not explain whether this effect replaces existing effects, whether it mutates the node permanently, or what side effects occur beyond the visible style changes.

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 front-loads the core action and then lists the effect properties. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundancy or filler.

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 three-parameter style tool, the description is mostly adequate, but it lacks important context about interaction with existing effects, whether the border is configurable, and whether the effect replaces or merges with current fill/effect settings. The absence of annotations and output schema increases the need for more behavioral context.

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 the parameters. The description adds minimal semantics beyond matching blur and opacity to the effect traits, and it does not mention the nodeId parameter at all.

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 glassmorphism effect') and the specific visual components it sets: background blur, semi-transparent fill, and subtle border. It is clear and informative, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from closely related siblings like apply_backdrop_blur or set_effects.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as apply_backdrop_blur, set_effects, or create_neumorphism. The usage is only implied by the name and effect description; no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative conditions are mentioned.

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