add_effect

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 does disclose one real behavioral trait — filters render before the mask and styles after — but says nothing about required permissions, whether duplicates are allowed, what index controls, or what the call returns. For an unannotated mutation tool this is a substantial gap.

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 tight sentence with no filler, and the core operation is front-loaded. The trailing parenthetical is compressed to the point of ambiguity ('filters before the mask') but it costs little space.

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?

Five parameters, 0% schema coverage, a nested object, no output schema, and no annotations — this is exactly the case where the description should be doing more. The ordering note is the only substantial contribution; effect type values, param contents, and post-mutation state are all unaddressed.

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% across five parameters, including a free-form nested 'params' object, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It hints that 'type' selects between filter and style categories but gives no enumerable values, no layer identifier format, no meaning for 'index' or 'project'.

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 states the resource (an effect on one layer) and distinguishes two kinds of effect (filters vs. styles with examples shadow/stroke/glow), but never states the verb 'add' explicitly and gives no sibling differentiation from update_effect, list_effects, or apply_look. An agent can infer intent, but the boundary against neighboring effect tools is not drawn.

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 statement of when to use this versus update_effect/remove_effect/move_effect or apply_look, nor any prerequisite (does a project need to be open? must the layer exist?). The only guidance is the ordering parenthetical, which is about rendering behavior, not tool selection.

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