apply-effect-template

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that a template is applied, without indicating whether existing effects are replaced, whether the operation is reversible, whether any selection is required, or what happens with customSettings. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It directly states the action, resource, and target, and every word earns its place. No unnecessary details or repetitive phrasing.

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?

The tool has moderate complexity with four parameters, a nested object, and no output schema or annotations. The description is too sparse to fully support an agent's decision-making: it lacks behavioral details, usage context, and any mention of what happens during/after application. The schema explains parameters but not the operation's side effects or success criteria.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all parameters, including enums and the nested customSettings object. The description itself adds little beyond the schema, but the schema already conveys the meaning adequately. There is no contradiction or missing parameter context that the description must compensate for, so baseline 3 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 uses a specific verb ('Apply'), resource ('effect template'), and target ('layer in After Effects'), making the core action clear. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'apply-effect' or 'apply-preset', leaving potential ambiguity about whether 'template' differs from a general effect or preset.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or scenarios where a different tool would be more appropriate, despite the presence of closely related sibling tools such as 'apply-effect' and 'apply-preset'.

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