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, but it only restates the tool's basic action. It does not mention whether applying an effect replaces existing effects, how effect lookup/match name works, whether properties are merged or overwritten, or what side effects occur on the layer.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It is appropriately short, though it sacrifices useful detail for brevity.

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 six parameters, a nested properties object, no annotations, no output schema, and a crowded sibling set of effect-related tools, this description is far too sparse. It lacks critical context about required identifiers, effect selection, parameter passing, and expected outcomes, making it insufficient for reliable tool invocation.

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 low at 33%, and the description adds no parameter explanations beyond the two already described in the schema. The names compId, compName, layerName, and layerIndex are somewhat self-explanatory, but there is no clarity on identifier precedence, optionality, or how the properties object maps to effect controls.

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' clearly states the verb and resource, indicating the core action. However, it does not distinguish this from sibling tools like apply_effect_template or modify_effect_properties, which also involve applying or altering effects.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as apply_effect_template, modify_effect_properties, or list_effects. The description gives no context about prerequisites, selection criteria, or typical scenarios, so the agent receives no usage direction.

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