ae_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. It only describes the act of applying an effect and the accepted name formats; it does not explain default targets, side effects, behavior on existing effects, or error conditions. This is minimal disclosure for an operation that modifies a layer.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the action and immediately provides the key input constraint with relevant examples. Every element earns its place, and there is no redundancy with the schema.

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 tool with five parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and optional target selectors, the description is too thin. It does not explain what happens when comp_name/layer_name are omitted, whether an active selection is used, or how the effect is applied, leaving an agent uncertain about correct 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds slightly beyond the schema by clarifying that the effect accepts both display names and matchNames and giving examples, but it adds nothing about the optional comp/layer precedence or how selection works, which the schema also leaves unstated.

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 specific verb ('Apply') and resource ('an effect'), and specifies the two valid identifier forms: display name or matchName, with concrete examples. This makes the tool's purpose immediately clear and distinguishes it from siblings like ae_remove_effect or ae_set_effect_property.

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 gives no guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives, when not to use it, or how target layer/composition selection works. It implies usage through the verb 'apply' but provides no context about prerequisites or selection order among the optional comp/layer parameters.

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