set_motion_blur

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Configure motion blur' implies a mutation operation, but the description doesn't specify if this requires specific permissions, whether changes are reversible, what happens to existing settings, or what the response looks like (e.g., success/failure confirmation). 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 with zero waste: 'Configure motion blur for a layer'. It's front-loaded with the core action and target, making it easy to parse quickly. No extraneous words or redundant information are present.

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 this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral context (e.g., side effects, error conditions), usage prerequisites, and any indication of what the tool returns. While the schema covers parameters well, the overall context for safe and effective use is insufficient, especially compared to siblings that may have richer descriptions.

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%, with all parameters (compId, layerIndex, enabled, adjustmentLayer) clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema—it doesn't explain relationships between parameters (e.g., how 'adjustmentLayer' interacts with 'enabled') or provide usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Configure motion blur for a layer' clearly states the action (configure) and target (motion blur for a layer), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'set_layer_visibility' or 'set_layer_blend_mode', but the specificity of 'motion blur' provides inherent distinction. It's not tautological with the name 'set_motion_blur' as it adds context about configuring for a layer.

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 valid composition and layer), exclusions (e.g., not applicable to certain layer types), or related tools (e.g., how it differs from 'modify_layer_properties' or other 'set_' tools). The agent must infer usage solely from the tool name and parameters.

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