apply-effect

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only restates the basic operation. It does not mention whether applying an effect replaces existing effects, how failures are handled, what side effects occur, or whether it requires specific permissions. This is minimal beyond the tool's name.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and easy to parse, though it is too brief for a tool with this complexity.

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 9 parameters, a nested object, no annotations, no output schema, and many closely related sibling tools, a one-sentence description is completely inadequate. It lacks guidance on how to identify effects, how to handle settings, differences from similar tools, and expected results.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no information about parameters, and the schema itself contains redundant aliases (effect, effectName, effectMatchName, effectIdentifier) without clear priority. Still, because the schema documents all parameters, a baseline score is appropriate.

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 clearly states the action ('Apply an effect') and target ('a layer in After Effects'), making the core purpose understandable. However, it does not distinguish this tool from close siblings like 'add-any-effect' or 'apply-effect-template', which also apply effects to layers.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'add-any-effect' or 'apply-preset', nor any indication of how to choose among the overlapping effect parameters (effect, effectName, effectMatchName). The description provides no context for selection or exclusions.

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