set-effect-property

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior, but it only states the basic function. It omits critical details like conflict resolution when multiple identification methods are provided, what happens if a property doesn't exist, whether keyframes are added or overwritten, and the effect on existing keyframes or expressions.

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 sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose and method. Every word is meaningful, and it is not verbose. It is perfectly concise for a tool with extensive schema documentation.

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 (13 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, no annotations), the description is too minimal. It does not explain what the tool returns, how to handle errors, or provide any context on the order of precedence for identifying effects (name vs index vs matchName).

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds a high-level summary but does not elaborate on parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. For example, the behavior of keyframeOptions and how parameters interact is left to the schema.

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 ('set or keyframe any property on an existing layer effect') and the method ('using name/index/path'). However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like set-effect-keyframe, which also handles keyframing, missing a chance to clarify unique scope.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't explain when to prefer this over set-effect-keyframe or setLayerKeyframe, nor does it mention prerequisites like requiring an existing effect on the layer.

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