apply_effect_style

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 and delivers almost none of it. It doesn't disclose whether existing effects are replaced or merged, whether the node must be a compatible type, or whether the styleId must resolve to a local effect style.

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 short, front-loaded sentence with no wasted clauses. But it is terse to the point of under-specification, and the 'effect style to a node's effects' construction is redundant rather than economical.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is the only source of context and it leaves the mutation semantics, prerequisite (does the style need to exist?), and parameter meaning unexplained. For a two-required-parameter mutation tool this is a clear gap.

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 0% for both required parameters. The description's words 'node' and 'effect style' give only the roughest hint that nodeId and styleId take a node identifier and a style identifier; no format, ID type, or lookup source is specified.

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 and resource ('Apply an effect style'), so the agent knows it performs a style application. However, 'to a node's effects' is circular phrasing and the description does nothing to distinguish it from the many sibling appliers (apply_fill_style, apply_stroke_style, apply_text_style, apply_grid_style), though the 'effect' noun does implicitly scope it.

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 when-to-use guidance at all. It does not say whether the style must already exist locally (vs. one created by create_effect_style or import_style_by_key), nor whether to prefer set_effects for raw effect data instead of a style reference.

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