set_glass_effects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It implies mutation ('Configure') but does not disclose side effects, reversibility, or permission requirements. It lists the affected effects, which is somewhat helpful, but lacks depth on behavioral traits. Adequate but not thorough.

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?

Single sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the purpose and efficiently conveys the tool's function. Every word earns its place.

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 11 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is adequate but lacks completeness. It does not mention what happens after configuration (e.g., success indicator, error conditions, or persistence). The schema descriptions cover parameters, but the overall context of usage (e.g., need to create a bundle first, or that effects are applied immediately) is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description lists some effect types (specular, blur, shadow, translucency) that map to parameters, but these are already described in the schema. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides, such as relationships between parameters or default behavior.

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 ('Configure'), the resource ('Liquid Glass effects on a layer group'), and the scope ('in an existing .icon bundle'). It is a specific verb+resource that distinguishes from siblings like 'render_liquid_glass' which likely performs rendering rather than configuration.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or related tools. For example, it does not indicate whether 'render_liquid_glass' should be used afterward or if this tool supersedes other effect settings.

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