Apply Preset

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, non-idempotent, non-read-only, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds a genuine validation constraint (allowed folders) beyond the annotations, but omits what actually gets destroyed or overwritten on the layer and whether existing effects/animation are replaced.

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 short sentences with the core action front-loaded and the constraint immediately following. No filler, no repetition of the name or title.

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?

For a two-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the definition covers the action and one constraint but leaves the mutation's scope undefined (what happens to existing preset/effects on the layer) and gives no indication of the result. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 clarifies ffx_path is a filesystem path subject to an allowed-folder restriction, but says nothing about layer_id or path format (absolute vs. relative). Partial compensation for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Apply an .ffx animation preset to a layer'), which is clearly distinct from the sibling apply_effect at the resource level. It does not explicitly name apply_effect as the alternative, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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 only guidance is the constraint that the path must be inside allowed folders, which is a precondition rather than a when-to-use rule. Nothing indicates when to prefer this over apply_effect or other animation tools, and no exclusions are stated.

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