apply-effect

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

Since there are no annotations, the description carries the full burden of revealing behavioral traits, but it only restates the action 'Apply an effect.' It does not mention side effects, reversibility, requirements, or return behavior, providing essentially no beyond-name 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 short sentence with no unnecessary words, making it concise and front-loaded. However, it is somewhat sparse and could have used the spare space to add useful context, so it does not reach a perfect score.

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?

With 9 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and many overlapping sibling tools, the description is severely underspecified. It does not address return values, expected behavior, parameter selection strategies, or relationship to other tools, making it inadequate for a tool of this complexity.

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 already provides descriptions for all 9 parameters, giving 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description itself adds no parameter guidance and does not help disambiguate the overlapping effect identifiers (e.g., effect vs effectName vs effectMatchName), but it is not required to due to schema coverage.

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'), the object ('an effect'), and the target scope ('to a layer in After Effects'). However, it does not distinguish this tool from sibling tools like add-any-effect or apply-effect-template, so it lacks sibling 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?

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites, exclusions, or conditions. It is a bare statement of action without contextual usage advice.

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