set_transition_effect

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose scope ('main background switcher') and that it sets an 'active' effect rather than performing a transition, but it does not say whether the change is immediate, persistent, or requires a subsequent transition, nor any permission requirements.

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 no filler; the core action is front-loaded and the discovery hint follows immediately. Every clause earns its place.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, scope, examples, and how to find valid values. It would be fully complete if it stated whether the effect applies immediately or at the next transition.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: it clarifies that the value can be any effect name from the effects bin, not just the listed examples, and points to get_switcher_state for the authoritative list.

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 gives a specific verb (set) and resource (active transition effect on the main background switcher) and supplies concrete examples ('Cut', 'Dissolve', 'Wipe'). It is clear, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like cut_transition or auto_transition, which also deal with transitions.

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 points the agent to get_switcher_state to discover valid effect names, which is useful routing guidance. However, it gives no guidance on when to use this configuration tool versus executing tools like cut_transition or auto_transition, leaving the usage context implied.

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