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 burden of disclosing behavioral details. It only states the action (apply an effect) without explaining side effects (e.g., modifying the layer), requirements (e.g., indices must be valid), or the behavior when parameters conflict (e.g., effectName vs. effectMatchName). The description adds minimal value beyond the tool name.

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?

The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a basic tool purpose statement and is easy to parse quickly.

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 the tool's complexity (7 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, no annotations), the one-sentence description is insufficient. It does not explain return values, error behavior, or the relationship between optional parameters. The schema covers parameter definitions but the description lacks contextual completeness for a mutation tool.

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%, with all parameters having descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema. It does not clarify how to choose between effectName, effectMatchName, or presetPath, but the schema already provides adequate descriptions for each parameter.

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 tool's function: 'Apply an effect to a layer in After Effects.' It uses a specific verb ('apply') and identifies the resource ('effect') and target ('layer'). However, it does not distinguish from the sibling tool 'apply-effect-template', which also applies effects. Thus, it is clear but lacks 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or context such as requiring an active composition or layer. No sibling tools are referenced, and there is no implied usage beyond the basic action.

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