add_effect

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive, so the description's real contribution is the persistence model: mutations land in the edit buffer and vanish unless save_preset is called. It also discloses the default placement rule (appended to the chain end unless position is given), which is behavior an agent could not infer from annotations.

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?

Two tightly written sentences with no filler; the edit-buffer caveat and the position default are both front-loaded where an agent will read them. Every clause carries distinct information.

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 four-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials an agent needs: where the write lands, that it is not persisted, and how ordering defaults. It is slightly thin on the nested params object and on what happens on invalid type/model, but nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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 75% and the description adds a real semantic detail beyond the schema: position is optional and omitting it appends to the end, which the schema's 'Position in the chain, 1 = first' does not state. It says nothing about the nested 'params' object, which is undocumented in both the schema and the description, so it does not fully compensate for the coverage gap.

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 ('Add an effect to the active preset's edit buffer') with the target scope made explicit. The verb 'add' distinguishes it from siblings like change_effect, edit_effect, and move_effect, though those alternatives are not named outright.

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?

It implies the workflow context by noting the change is buffered until save_preset, which is genuinely useful routing information. However, it never says when to use add_effect versus change_effect/edit_effect for an already-present effect, nor whether list_effect_catalog should be consulted first for valid type/model values.

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