remove_all_effects

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

The description clearly implies a mutating action and tells the agent what gets removed (shadows, blurs, and other effects). With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it does not disclose whether the change is reversible, what exact effect types are covered, or whether only the node itself is affected.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the core action and adds clarifying examples without waste. Every word earns its place.

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 one-parameter tool, the description and schema together give an agent enough to call it correctly. It lacks sibling routing and behavioral caveats, but the operation is straightforward and the missing details are minor rather than blocking.

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 input schema already documents nodeId as 'Target node' with 100% coverage, so the description adds no parameter-level detail. It simply relies on the schema, which is an acceptable baseline but not a value-add.

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 states a concrete action ('Remove all effects') on a clear resource ('a node') and gives helpful examples ('shadows, blurs'). It is unambiguous about scope, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like set_effects or batch_remove_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?

Usage is implied: if you want to clear all visual effects from one node, this tool does that. However, it offers no guidance on when to prefer this over set_effects or batch_remove_effects, and it does not mention exclusions or alternatives.

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