remove_effect_by_name

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

Annotations already indicate destructive behavior, and the description adds useful context beyond that: it removes all instances and returns a capability error when individual component removal is unsupported. This gives the agent important failure-mode information not visible in the structured fields.

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 two short sentences: the first states the core purpose and scope, the second adds an important error behavior. There is no redundant or filler content.

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 simple 2-parameter destructive tool with annotations covering destructive behavior, the description is complete: it explains what is removed, how matching works, and a key error condition. No output schema is present, but the description sufficiently covers the primary usage and failure mode.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful nuance by emphasizing 'all instances' and 'by display name,' which clarifies how effect_name is interpreted beyond the schema's simple 'Display name of the effect to remove.'

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 and scope: 'Remove all instances of a specific effect from a clip by display name.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like remove_effect and remove_all_effects by specifying both the matching mechanism (display name) and the behavior (all instances).

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 clear context about when this tool is appropriate: removing all matching effects by display name. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state exclusions, but the 'by display name' and 'all instances' phrasing effectively implies the intended use case.

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