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 merely says "Apply an effect" without mentioning side effects (e.g., overwriting existing effects), required state (e.g., composition must exist), or behavior when parameters conflict (e.g., both effectName and effectMatchName provided). This is a severe omission.

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 consists of a single sentence that directly states the action. It is front-loaded and avoids unnecessary words. However, efficiency does not compensate for the lack of content, slightly reducing the score from a perfect 5.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (9 parameters, many siblings, no output schema), the description is far from complete. It does not explain what the tool returns, how it handles multiple effect identifiers, or what happens when a preset path is combined with effect parameters. Essential context for correct invocation is missing.

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?

While the input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for each parameter (e.g., effect: "Generic effect identifier"), the tool-level description does not add any extra context or clarify parameter relationships. For example, it does not explain the precedence among effect, effectName, effectMatchName, and effectIdentifier. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 "Apply an effect to a layer in After Effects" clearly states the verb (apply) and resource (effect to layer), making the tool's purpose understandable. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like "add-any-effect" or "apply-preset", which could cause confusion.

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 such as "add-any-effect", "apply-effect-template", or "apply-preset". There is no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without decision-making support.

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