ae_set_effect_property

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that setting is by effect_name or effect_index and that indexing is 1-based, but it does not disclose side effects, failure modes, whether values are overwritten, or what context (comp/layer) is required.

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 brief and front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence contributes, but it is slightly thin given the tool's 8 parameters and mutation semantics.

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?

This is a mutation tool with 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, yet the description provides almost no operational context. It omits how comp_name/comp_index and layer_name/layer_index relate to locating the effect, what happens if the effect is not found, and whether property values must match a specific type. The 1-based effect identification note is helpful but far from sufficient.

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 63%, and the description adds a small but useful detail: effect identification via effect_name or effect_index with 1-based indexing. The schema already documents many parameters with descriptions, so the description does not need to repeat them. Some parameters remain undocumented in the schema and description, keeping this at baseline.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Set a property on an effect instance.' It also explains how the effect is identified. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like ae_apply_effect, though 'effect instance' strongly implies an existing effect.

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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not say when to prefer this tool over ae_apply_effect or ae_remove_effect, nor does it mention prerequisites such as the need for an existing effect or how to discover valid properties.

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