set_effects

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses the return format `{ ok, nodeId }`, which is useful since no output schema exists. However, it does not state whether setting effects replaces existing effects, whether shadows require a visible flag, or any permission requirements. The return value adds some transparency, but key behavioral details are missing.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary verb and resource. The first sentence states the action, the second clarifies parameter requirements and the return value. There is zero wasted text.

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 (two parameters, one being a nested array), the description plus schema covers the essentials: what the tool does, required parameter details, and return value. It lacks explicit mention of behavior like replacing existing effects, but the provided information is sufficient for an agent to select and call the tool correctly in most cases.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful information beyond the schema by clarifying that shadows need color + offset and blurs need radius. This is especially valuable because the schema lacks a description for the radius field, making the description's clarification necessary for correct invocation.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Set a node's effects.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like set_fills or set_text by naming the effect types (DROP_SHADOW, INNER_SHADOW, LAYER_BLUR, BACKGROUND_BLUR). The scope is unambiguous.

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 context of use is implied: it applies effects to a node. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like set_reactions or set_fills, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. There is clear functional context but no direct comparison with sibling tools.

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