trigger_effect

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 doesn't state whether this mutates state, whether it's a fire-and-forget transient effect, whether it requires an active connection, what side effects occur, or whether it interrupts/overrides other effects. The term 'effect' implies a transient display change but this is never made explicit.

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 fluff. However, this leans toward under-specification rather than genuine conciseness—the brevity comes at the cost of substance. Still, on pure conciseness grounds it's clean and front-loads the verb.

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?

A 3-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema is severely under-documented. For a tool with a required string parameter (effectType) that has no enum constraints, the agent cannot possibly invoke it correctly without guessing valid effect names. This is wholly inadequate.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for full documentation of the 3 parameters. It does nothing of the sort. effectType (a string with no enum values) is required but its valid values are undocumented; intensity and durationSec have no range, unit, or default semantics explained. The agent has no idea what values are valid.

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 'Trigger a visual effect' states an action (trigger) and resource (visual effect), but is extremely vague. It doesn't specify what kinds of visual effects exist, how this differs from related tools like show_overlay, hide_overlay, or switch_segment, or what the effect actually produces visually. Given the sibling set includes multiple display/overlay tools, there's no differentiation.

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 on when to use this tool versus show_overlay, set_scene, or other visual-control siblings. No context about prerequisites (e.g., whether OBS must be connected/running, whether effects require a specific mode), nor when NOT to use it.

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