apply-effect

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, but it only says that an effect is applied. It omits whether the operation is destructive, what permissions or preconditions apply, whether duplicate effects are allowed, and what happens if an effect name is invalid.

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, front-loaded with the core action and followed by a useful pointer to get-effects-help. No sentence is wasted.

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 seven-parameter mutation tool with a nested effectSettings object and no annotations, the description is too thin. It does not explain required index semantics, ordering behavior, or failure conditions, relying almost entirely on the schema and leaving behavioral gaps that matter for correct invocation.

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 100%, so all seven parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds only a reliability tip for effect names, which aligns with the schema's own note that effectMatchName is more reliable, and does not decode compIndex, layerIndex, effectSettings, or presetPath beyond the schema.

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 and resource: it applies an effect to a layer. It clearly routes the agent to get-effects-help for reliable effect names but does not distinguish this tool from the sibling apply-effect-template, 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?

It gives one concrete usage tip, directing the agent to get-effects-help for reliable effect match names. However, it does not say when to use this tool versus apply-effect-template or what conditions make application fail, leaving most usage context implied.

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