set_effect_width

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action without revealing side effects, permissions, range constraints, or error behavior. The parameter hint 'percentage of cycle' is helpful but insufficient.

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 short and front-loaded, but includes an Args and Returns block that are redundant with the schema and output schema. It could be more concise by removing these formal sections.

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 presence of an output schema, return value explanation is not needed. However, among many effect-setting siblings, the description lacks a fuller explanation of how width fits into effects. It is minimally complete for a simple setter.

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 parameter 'width' has 0% schema description coverage, but the tool description adds meaning by specifying 'Width value (percentage of cycle)'. This clarifies the unit and domain, going beyond the schema's bare title.

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') and resource ('effect width') for the current selection. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like set_effect_envelope or set_effect_form by specifically targeting width.

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 like set_effect_envelope or set_effect_form. There is no mention of prerequisites or context such as needing an active selection.

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