apply-effect-template

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention side effects, whether the operation is destructive (e.g., overwrites existing effects), error conditions, or any implicit behavior like requiring a specific application state. The minimal text leaves the agent without critical safety cues.

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 concise sentence, front-loaded with the primary verb and object. It wastes no words and is easy to scan. However, the brevity borders on under-specification, so it does not earn a 5.

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 has four parameters including a nested object and an enum, plus no output schema, the description should explain more about the effect of applying templates, what 'customSettings' can override, and possible results or side effects. The one-liner does not provide enough context for an agent to confidently invoke the tool in varied scenarios.

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 baseline is 3. The description itself adds no parameter-specific details beyond naming the action. It does not explain how 'customSettings' interacts with the predefined templates or what 'templateName' values imply, but the schema already handles parameter names and types adequately.

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 ('apply a predefined effect template') and the target resource ('a layer in After Effects'). It is specific enough to distinguish from generic effect application, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like 'apply-effect'.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of prerequisites, such as having a composition open or a layer selected, nor any exclusions or contextual cues for when to choose this over other effect-related tools.

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