Apply Effect

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false). The description adds a genuinely useful caveat that a component-list readback does not verify rendered pixels, warning the agent that apparent success is not visual confirmation. But the QE DOM catalog/exact-name probe sentence is implementation jargon that does not translate into agent-actionable behavior.

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 core action is correctly front-loaded in sentence one, but the two follow-up sentences are dense internal-implementation notes whose benefit to the caller is only partially clear. They are not pure filler (they hint at verification limits) but they are not well-explained either.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and annotations cover the safety profile. What remains missing is routing guidance versus batch_apply_effect and any statement of failure modes (e.g. unknown effect_name), leaving the definition only minimally complete for a mutation tool.

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 coverage is 100% and both parameters are documented in the schema, including an example effect name. The description adds no additional meaning about node_id or effect_name, so the schema does the heavy lifting and the baseline 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 first sentence states a clear verb+resource ('Apply a video effect to a clip'), so the agent knows exactly what it does. However, it gives no differentiation from close siblings like batch_apply_effect, apply_lut, or apply_audio_effect, leaving the agent to infer the distinction from names alone.

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 when-to-use guidance at all. With siblings such as batch_apply_effect, apply_audio_effect, apply_lut, and apply_after_effects_render_handoff in the same family, the description never says when this single-effect tool is preferred over those alternatives.

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