remove_effect

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the operation is a removal (implying mutation) but doesn't disclose whether the effect is permanently deleted, whether it requires the composition to be open, or what happens if the effect/layer is not found. This is a minimal one-liner with no behavioral depth.

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 with no filler. It is front-loaded and immediately understandable, though it sacrifices necessary 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?

With 6 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should compensate by explaining parameter semantics, identification methods, and error behavior. It does none of this, leaving the agent to guess how to specify targets or handle failures.

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?

There is 0% schema description coverage, so the description must clarify parameter semantics. It only mentions 'effect' and 'layer' but doesn't explain the relationship between compId/compName, layerName/layerIndex, or effectName/effectIndex. Users are left unsure which parameters are alternatives, required, or how they interact.

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 (remove) and resource (effect from a layer). It distinguishes from sibling tools like delete_layer (deletes entire layer) and modify_layer (edits layer properties). However, it doesn't clarify scope (which composition or layer) beyond the parameters.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like modify_layer or set_keyframe. No mention of prerequisites (e.g., composition must be open, effect must exist) or how layer/effect identification works.

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