modify_effect_properties

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. It does not state whether the modification is destructive, requires specific user permissions, or affects other properties. The description says 'modify ... an existing effect', but does not explain what happens to unspecified properties or whether the change is atomic. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action ('Modify properties'). However, it is too brief to be maximally useful, bordering on under-specification rather than conciseness.

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 has 7 parameters (including a required nested object), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is critically incomplete. It does not explain how to identify the target effect, the format of the properties object, or what the return value looks like. Sibling tools like 'apply_effect' may offer more context, but this description alone is insufficient.

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 0%, meaning no parameters have descriptive hints in the schema. The description does not compensate by explaining how to use the seven parameters (e.g., whether compId or layerName is preferred, or how properties structure works). Only the 'properties' parameter is required, but its nested object semantics are completely undocumented.

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 states the verb 'modify' and resource 'effect properties', which is clear but does not specify which fields can be modified or distinguish this from sibling tools like 'apply_effect' or 'remove_effect'. The purpose is adequate but lacks specificity about scope or constraints.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'remove_effect' or 'reorder_effects'. There are no prerequisites mentioned for identifying an effect (e.g., needing comp context or effect index) and no exclusion criteria. The agent is left to infer usage from the name alone.

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