Effets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral nuance: matchName is more reliable when the UI language differs, and parameters can be named in two ways. However, it does not mention whether operations mutate the project, require specific layer selection, or have side effects. For a manipulation tool, this is a notable gap, though not misleading.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary operations. The key hint about matchName and naming is included without redundancy. Every sentence earns its place, and no filler exists.

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 13 parameters including nested objects, the description is concise but sufficient for understanding the tool's role. It covers the critical naming nuance and the list operation. The schema handles parameter-level details, so the description doesn't need to restate them. Minor missing context about return values or side effects, but for an effect manipulation tool, this is adequate.

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?

The schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so baseline is 3. The tool description adds value beyond the schema by clarifying that parameters are given by display name or matchName, and by explaining the purpose of 'list' for finding matchName. This helps an agent understand naming semantics that the schema alone does not convey.

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 opens with a specific verb set applied to a clear resource: 'Chercher, appliquer, regler et retirer des effets' (search, apply, adjust, remove effects). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like ae_property or ae_layer by explicitly targeting effects, and the action enum (list/apply/set/remove) adds precision. This is unambiguous.

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 gives concrete usage guidance: it explains that 'action=list' is used to retrieve the exact matchName of an effect, which is essential when the AE interface is not in English, and that parameters can be given by display name or matchName. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the guidance is actionable and context-specific.

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