apply_expression_template

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

No annotations were provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Apply a pre-built expression template'—it does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether it modifies properties, whether it is destructive, or what the output is). It adds no behavioral context beyond the name.

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, front-loaded sentence with no fluff, which earns some points for conciseness. However, it is under-specified—the brevity comes at the cost of missing critical information. It is not merely concise but incomplete.

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 (7 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain return values, potential side effects, or parameter roles. The lack of any guidance on usage or parameter semantics makes it inadequate for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 input schema has 7 parameters with only 14% coverage (only 'params' has a description). The description does not explain the meaning of 'property', 'template', 'layerName', 'compId', etc. It also does not clarify how the parameters interact or provide examples. The description adds virtually no semantic value beyond the raw 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 ('Apply') and the resource ('pre-built expression template'), which gives a clear verb+resource purpose. However, it does not distinguish itself from siblings like 'set_expression' or 'apply_effect_template'—it is not specific about what an expression template does or how it differs from simply setting an expression.

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. No mention of scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. The description only states what it does, not when or why to use it.

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