apply_expression_preset

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 states the action ('apply') but doesn't describe what happens during application—whether it overwrites existing expressions, requires specific permissions, has side effects on the property, or what the expected outcome is. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and target, making it easy to parse quickly. There's no wasted verbiage or redundant information.

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 the tool's complexity (applying presets with customization parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the mutation behavior, potential errors, or what happens post-application. For a tool that modifies properties with presets, more context is needed to guide safe and effective use.

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 has 100% description coverage, documenting all 5 parameters clearly. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining how 'propertyPath' is formatted or what 'parameters' object should contain. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, but the description doesn't compensate or enhance understanding.

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') and target ('saved expression preset to a property'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'add_expression_control' or 'set_expression' by focusing on applying pre-saved presets rather than creating or setting expressions directly. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'apply_animation_preset' or 'save_expression_preset', leaving some ambiguity.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a saved preset first), when it's appropriate compared to 'set_expression' or 'add_loop_expression', or any constraints like property compatibility. This lack of context makes it hard for an agent to decide when to invoke it.

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