update_effect

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. It says params are changed and the effect can be toggled, but never states whether params merge or replace, whether changes require a specific document/project state, whether they are reversible, or what happens on a bad index.

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 tight sentences with the mutation purpose front-loaded and zero filler, which is well sized. The index note is slightly cryptic in phrasing but costs almost nothing.

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?

A mutation tool with five parameters, a nested params object, no annotations, and no output schema. Given that complexity, the description should disclose merge/replace semantics, index validity behavior, and the role of project, none of which appear.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it only clarifies one of five parameters ('index = position in the layer's effects'). The meaning of layer, params, enabled, and project is entirely absent, leaving four of five parameters undocumented. The single clarification is genuinely useful but far short of what a 0%-coverage schema requires.

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 ('Change...params or switch it off/on') and resource ('an effect'), making clear this mutates an existing effect rather than adding, moving, or removing one. It implicitly distinguishes itself from add_effect/remove_effect/move_effect but never names or contrasts a sibling explicitly.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives named. The only navigational hint is 'index = position in the layer's effects,' which explains a parameter rather than when this tool should be chosen over add_effect, move_effect, or remove_effect. Usage is left to inference.

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