apply_effect

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

No annotations are present, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action without mentioning side effects, prerequisites (e.g., layer must exist), error handling for invalid effect names, or whether the effect is added or replaces existing ones.

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 sentence, making it brief and front-loaded. However, for a tool with six parameters and no annotations, this brevity sacrifices necessary detail, resulting in a mediocre balance between conciseness and informativeness.

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 (6 parameters, nested object, no output schema, no annotations), the description is critically incomplete. It omits prerequisites, return values, error scenarios, and behavioral context, leaving the agent with insufficient information to use the tool reliably.

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 low at 33%; only 'effect' and 'properties' have descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning to parameters like 'compId' vs 'compName' or 'layerName' vs 'layerIndex', nor does it explain the structure of the 'properties' object, failing to compensate for the schema's lack.

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' uses a specific verb-target pair ('apply', 'effect', 'layer') making the basic action clear. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'apply_effect_template', which likely applies a preset effect, missing an opportunity to clarify uniqueness.

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 usage guidelines are provided. The description gives no indication of when to use this tool over alternatives like 'apply_effect_template' or 'modify_effect_properties', leaving the agent without decision context.

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