apply_effect_template

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It only says 'Apply' which implies a mutation but gives no details about side effects, whether existing effects are overwritten, rollback capabilities, or any other behavioral traits. This is a significant gap.

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 short sentence, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. It lacks substance and fails to earn its place by providing valuable information. There is no structure or information hierarchy.

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?

For a tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is completely inadequate. It doesn't cover the mechanics of applying a template, explain the templates available, or describe expected outcomes. The description is far from complete.

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 only 29%, and the description adds nothing about the 7 parameters. It doesn't explain the meaning of template, intensity, customParams, or how to target a layer. The description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 verb ('Apply') and the resource ('pre-configured effect template'). It distinguishes the tool's purpose from direct effect manipulation by implying a preset application, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like apply_effect.

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 such as apply_effect or modify_effect_properties. The description offers no context on preferred scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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