Edit Effect

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the 'remove' action is consistent with that framing. The description adds the 1-based indexing convention but says nothing beyond annotations about irreversibility of removal, permissions, or effects on existing state, so it clears the lower annotated bar without exceeding it.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the three actions and scoped to 'an effect on a layer,' with the index convention and the lookup pointer appended where they are needed. Nothing is redundant and nothing is buried.

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 no output schema, the description does not need to explain return values, and it correctly covers the destructive action set, the index convention, and the index source. The remaining gap is that it does not itself describe the layer_id parameter or the effect_index parameter as schema fields, but for a three-parameter tool with an enum this is a minor omission.

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 carries the burden, and it does compensate for the non-obvious part: effect_index is explicitly 1-based and resolvable via get_layer. The action values are self-documenting via the enum and layer_id is unambiguous by name, so all three parameters are effectively covered.

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 gives concrete verbs (remove, enable, disable) tied to a specific resource (an effect on a layer), so an agent knows exactly what it mutates versus the additive apply_effect or delete_layer. It loses the top score only because it never names the sibling it contrasts with, leaving the distinction to be inferred from the verb choice.

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 parenthetical '(see get_layer for the list)' tells the agent where to obtain the effect index, which is real usage context. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus apply_effect (add) or delete_layer, nor any prerequisites, so the guidance remains implied rather than stated.

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