ae_apply_effect

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden and does add real value: it promises the effect's properties are returned for follow-up adjustment and that the operation collapses into 'one undo step', which tells the agent about atomicity and reversibility. It stops short of stating failure behavior when an effect name doesn't resolve or whether duplicate effects stack.

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?

Three short sentences, zero filler, and the core action and its return behavior are front-loaded before the undo note.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential traits: what it mutates, that it returns adjustable properties, and that it is a single undo step. It is slightly thin on the nested settings object and error cases, but adequate to call correctly.

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 all five parameters are already documented, including examples for effect and settings. The description's 'display name or matchName' phrasing adds a small amount of vocabulary beyond the schema's plain examples, but nothing about settings syntax or index semantics.

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+resource ('Apply an effect to a layer') and pinpoints the two accepted identifiers (display name or matchName) plus the optional property-setting behavior. This distinguishes it cleanly from siblings like ae_list_layer_effects and ae_remove_effects.

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 description implies its role (apply and configure an effect) but never says when to prefer it over alternatives such as ae_apply_preset or when to first call ae_list_available_effects to resolve a name. Usage is inferable but not stated.

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