apply-effect-template

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'Apply' implies a mutation, but it does not disclose whether effects are appended or replace existing ones, whether the operation is reversible/undoable, required permissions, or what happens to the template's default settings when customSettings is omitted.

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 tight sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, though it is terse to the point of under-specifying a multi-parameter mutation tool.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, so the description must explain behavior; instead it omits the nested customSettings object entirely, says nothing about the nine template options, and gives no mutation semantics. Inadequate for a 4-parameter mutation tool with a nested object.

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 the schema documents compIndex, layerIndex, templateName (with enum), and customSettings on its own. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 (Apply) and resource (predefined combination of effects to a layer). The word 'predefined combination' hints that this differs from the sibling apply-effect, which applies a single effect, but it never names that sibling to make the distinction explicit.

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 guidance on when to use this versus apply-effect or the other effect-related siblings (get-effects-help, get-effects-help). The reader must infer that this is the bulk/templated path from the phrase 'predefined combination' alone; there are no stated conditions or prerequisites.

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