set-effect-property

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('set or keyframe') without mentioning overwriting behavior, effect existence requirements beyond 'existing', error handling, or the irreversible nature of modifying property values. For a mutation tool, this is inadequate.

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, focused sentence with a clear verb and resource. It contains no filler words and is appropriately front-loaded, making it easy to scan and understand.

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?

Despite complex schema coverage (13 parameters, nested objects), the description is only one sentence and does not explain return values, behavior when timeInSeconds is absent/present, precedence rules between the multiple targeting parameters, or interaction between value, expressionString, and keyframing. Output schema is absent, so no return information is provided elsewhere.

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's 'using name/index/path' usefully groups the targeting mechanisms, but adds no new semantic detail beyond what each parameter description already covers. It does not clarify precedence or interactions among targeting parameters.

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 ('set or keyframe') and resource ('any property on an existing layer effect') with targeting method ('using name/index/path'). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like apply-effect (adds effects) and set-effect-keyframe (focuses on keyframing) by covering both setting and keyframing on existing effects.

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?

The phrase 'existing layer effect' implies a prerequisite: the effect must already be applied, suggesting not to use this for adding effects (use apply-effect instead). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the closely related sibling set-effect-keyframe or state when to prefer one over the other.

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