set_effect

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly discloses that effects are replaced wholesale, how to clear all effects, field differences between SHADOW and BLUR, and that failures are reported clearly. This covers key behavioral traits such as destructive overwrite and unsupported-node handling, though it doesn't mention permissions or return values.

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 three sentences with no filler. The main action is front-loaded, followed by a usage tip, a type-specific field note, and a failure mode note. Every sentence earns its place, and the format is easy to scan.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema and annotations, the description fully covers the tool's complexity: replacement semantics, clearing behavior, effect-type field requirements, and error behavior. For a setter tool with a well-defined input schema, this is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds concise semantic guidance beyond the schema by summarizing which fields apply to SHADOW vs BLUR effects and the clearing behavior with effects:[]. This helps the agent construct valid effects objects without reading every nested schema property, adding real value.

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 begins with a specific verb 'Replace' and resource 'effects on a node', clearly distinguishing this from other sibling tools like set_fill_color or set_corner_radius. The additional note 'assigns node.effects' confirms the underlying behavior, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 implies usage by context (replacing effects) but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or when not to use it. It gives operational tips like passing an empty array to clear, but no explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance, putting it at 'implied usage'.

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