mcp_aftereffects_applyEffect

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

The description discloses only the basic action and does not mention any behavioral traits such as side effects, reversibility, or how to handle the multiple effect identifier fields. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and falls short.

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, clear sentence that is front-loaded with the core verb and object. It is appropriately brief and contains no fluff, though additional context would be beneficial.

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 7 parameters, multiple aliases, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far too sparse. It does not clarify effect selection semantics, the optional nature of settings, or any operational context, making it incomplete 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?

The input schema already documents all seven parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-related meaning, such as the relationship between effect, effectName, effectMatchName, and effectIdentifier.

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 the action (apply) and the target (effect to a layer in After Effects). It is not a tautology and is specific enough to convey the core purpose, though it does not differentiate from sibling tools like apply-effect or add-any-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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks any mention of prerequisites, scenarios, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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