Apply Effect

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

Annotations already specify mutation, non-idempotency, and non-destructiveness. The description adds important behavioral detail beyond annotations: parameter assignment accepts name, match name, or 1-based index, and the effect is automatically removed if any parameter fails.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, and the core effect-add behavior is front-loaded. The failure-cleanup sentence earns its place because it changes how an agent should treat parameter errors.

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 four parameters, nested params, and no output schema, the description should explain all invocation-critical parameters. It omits layer_id and name entirely and gives no format for params values, so an agent cannot fully determine how to call it from the description alone.

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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It explains match_name lookup and params-key addressing, but it never mentions the required layer_id or the optional name parameter, leaving critical invocation details 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 a specific verb+resource: 'Add an effect' and set its parameters. It references find_effects for matching, which helps distinguish lookup from application, but does not explicitly contrast with the sibling edit_effect.

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?

It directs the agent to use find_effects to obtain the match name, which is useful context. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to use apply_effect versus edit_effect or apply_preset.

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