remove_effect

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the removal action but does not mention failure behavior (e.g., if effect is not found), side effects, or whether the operation is reversible. The agent has no insight into what happens beyond the basic action.

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, but it is too terse given the tool's complexity (six parameters, no schema descriptions). It could be restructured to front-load key usage details while remaining concise.

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?

The tool has 6 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and 0% schema coverage. The description provides almost no context: it doesn't explain parameter relationships, success/failure behavior, or required combinations. This is severely incomplete 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 description adds no meaning beyond the schema for the six parameters. It does not explain how to identify the effect (name vs index), whether effectName and effectIndex are alternatives, or how compId/compName/layerName/layerIndex disambiguate. With 0% schema coverage, the description fails to compensate.

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 the resource ('an effect from a layer'). It effectively distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'apply_effect', 'modify_effect_properties', and 'list_effects' by specifying removal.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when not to use it, prerequisites (e.g., effect must exist), or the distinction between removing by name vs index, 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.